Live data from Hacker News

The Voice of Google

newyorker.com

131–140 of 141 posts

Re: The Voice of Google

#131
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The New York Times is actually part of the reason why Google’s reputation went downhill. Somewhere around 2010–2015, the NYT and other traditional newspapers finally woke up and realized that their traditional job of disseminating information to the masses had been supplanted by a new generation of tech companies including Google and Meta. So the NYT and other newspapers soured their opinions around the time. If you…

Off-topic somewhat, but NYT once tried to convince their readers to call Elizabeth Holmes "Liz" and not send her to jail after her fraud conviction. The implication being that it was a highly paid puff piece. They lost a lot of credibility with me that day.

With all due respect, that's bullshit. Here is the article in question: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/07/business/elizabeth-holmes.... NYT is not "trying to convince their readers to call Elizabeth Holmes "Liz"". If anything, the author is quite clear that it is Elizabeth Holmes trying to convince you that she is just "Liz", and if anything I think the author does quite a good job outlining her serious crimes, and the fact that even people close to her find her to be duplicitous and that she shouldn't be trusted.

I think it's fair to ask whether Holmes would have been presented in such a soft light if she weren't a young, blonde, and still apparently rich by her husband, woman. But I think saying that the NYT is trying to convince their readers not to send her to jail is just a total mischaracterization of that article.

Re: The Voice of Google

#132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Early Microsoft (well, and current micorsoft) did not/does not shower their employees with massive stock grants. Google was one of the first tech companies to pay so well that people switched industries to get into tech both to work alongside brilliant people from various backgrounds and to make a lot of money. Before Google, it was very rare for an independent contributor/software engineer in tech to retire early if…

It did not shower people with grants but I met plenty of people who made a killing with post IPO stocks and pay at Microsoft. It also had a great culture with vibrant campus life, lectures, free soda and other things that were uncommon at the time.

How did they make a killing with post IPO stock if they weren't getting big grants? Their stock went up 50% over a 15 year period. Not great.

Re: The Voice of Google

#133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't over at that time. The real shift was after those people broke into Thomas Kurian's office. Right after, they permanently cracked down hard on various forms of employee expression, including posting flyers.

There was no mention of this on hacker news (at least I cant find anything via the search at the bottom) but the story of Thomas Kurian's office break in / sit in was in 2024 so not that long ago: https://www.calcalistech.com/ctechnews/article/ryldympec "Google employees arrested following protest over Israel ties at executive’s office. The employees were arrested during a sit-in at the office of Google Cloud CEO Tho…

Hm, surprised at lack of HN mention, as it was pretty high up in mainstream news. Random people were asking me what I knew about that.

Re: The Voice of Google

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was sanctioned by the CEO. How much was their job actually at risk?

Did you read the actual article? Regarding the CEO sanctioning it, it says: "It was classic P.R. jujitsu—­absorbing the language of dissent to neutralize it."

Not saying that isn't correct, but that article is from one perspective. Even if there was actually an earnest attempt by the CEO, she could still choose to view what happened this way.

Re: The Voice of Google

#135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Off-topic somewhat, but NYT once tried to convince their readers to call Elizabeth Holmes "Liz" and not send her to jail after her fraud conviction. The implication being that it was a highly paid puff piece. They lost a lot of credibility with me that day.

With all due respect, that's bullshit. Here is the article in question: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/07/business/elizabeth-holmes... . NYT is not "trying to convince their readers to call Elizabeth Holmes "Liz"". If anything, the author is quite clear that it is Elizabeth Holmes trying to convince you that she is just "Liz", and if anything I think the author does quite a good job outlining her serious crimes, and…

Well I'll be...

I've just read it in full and, while I think / agree it is probably still too generous and soft on her, you are quite right about it.

I'm thinking I must have been caught up in some of the commentary around it at the time it came out (I had recently read Carreyrou's book and had gone down a bit of a rabbit hole about her and Theranos), and when I did see it I read the headline and the first few paragraphs, looked at the image, and then closed the page in disgust.

Reading through the rest of it it does come across very differently, and was an interesting read. Thanks for replying about it.

Re: The Voice of Google

#136
I remember this period of Google very vividly, it felt absolutely surreal to see everything about the company immediately leaked to the press and getting insane media coverage. Younger me was very skeptical and it was hard for me to reconcile what the truth was given the broader political climate and my own anecdata that none of the women I worked with empathized with or shared the experiences of the internal activists.

At the time, I had a gutt feeling that all of the stories I read on internal threads and that the loudest voices, largely came from women in non-engineering/product roles, and this article (+book) has somewhat confirmed that for me. Even Sergei cheated on his wife with a woman in marketing in 2013.

Since the majority of Google is engineers, I believe Claire's movement ultimately failed because most of the company (again, engineers), looked to their peers and didn't see any of the systemic issues the movement espoused.

Re: The Voice of Google

#137

Google figured out how to create a classless suite of internet services for anyone on Earth with an internet connection to use. I struggle to see how this didn't meet their original goals, what people celebrated about Google, and what made Google such an attractive place for people like the author to work. What's fascinating is that Google gets virtually zero recognition for this (Google services are largely taken fo…

Yes, both rich and poor people will use Google's free services. It's sort of like how a can of Coke is the same no matter who you are. But also, Google sells plenty of "premium" products to people who are willing to pay, starting with YouTube premium. And I'm getting lots of upsells when using Google Meet these days.

It's the age old topic of whether people would rather pay for a product or get ads. Everyone says they'll pay, but like an addict that says they'll quit, they all opt for the ads

Re: The Voice of Google

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What have you looked through already and what kinds of sources do you consider reputable and trustworthy? Asking because there's a lot of trolling and hostility disguised as curiosity on hacker news lately, and I've wasted a lot of time engaging with these people. Not saying thats you or the guy above you, but I'm not open to spending my time only to receive a dismissive and hostile response discounting my sources wh…

Hi again > Those statistics are widely known and accepted. Do you need me to provide evidence from that? No need for that in particular. What I would appreciate evidence for is this part specifically: > the technical addiction and attention economy that has created more depression and a lower quality of life for most people on earth. Basically, a source or sources demonstrating all of the following: 1. "Technical add…

I’d like to spend more time to give you a better answer than i can now. Thank you for your response and engagement, And respect.

Since you haven’t shared your definition of depression and what it means to you, here’s what I mean by it.

Feel free to share yours, feel free to email me also to continue this discussion if it’s easier

Hello@mannan.is

Mayo Clinic depression: “ Depression is a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest. … it affects how you feel, think and behave and can lead to a variety of emotional and physical problems. … trouble doing normal day-to-day activities, … sometimes you may feel as if life isn't worth

Https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/depression/symptoms-causes/syc-20356007

This is a diagnostic definition.

“ChatGPT: diagnostic definition: the symptoms clinicians count to determine whether someone meets criteria“

I imagine much of your research and past experience, has been focused in on the diagnostic definition, and probably mind heavy. Depression imo isn’t just defined by looking at the markers you look for to diagnose them in a clinical or medical setting, nor by focusing on only one body part like the mind. Has your experience been that a lot of research focuses on this and misses the rest of the body?

“ChatGPT: experiential definition: the underlying transformation those symptoms collectively express.”

What would you say the underlying transformation is? I’d say it’s loss of mood, pleasure, motivations connection, meaning and overall sense of possibility.

With everything in the world today happening at an accelerated harmful rate becoming aware to everyone simultaneously as we are growingly interconnected in this digital age; everyone sees the news on war, covid, ai and that has this transformational impact on them. Wouldn’t you say? How much have you noticed this transformative definition occur for >50% of people on the earth.

Unfortunately I don’t think I can find studies on this. There’s too much new; and it’s a lot of interconnected pieces lumped into one. Seeing also I took a holistic approach, I don’t know there’d be much evidence that would feel quality as holistic approaches and study in general get underfunded and dismissed and struggle to find study sponsors ie government, pharma etc. and when it comes to doing holistic studies; they’re just so hard. It’s so hard to do identical studies for very customized holistic whole systems.

So all this to say not much sources, as I didn’t approach this in the clinical way you did. I’m sure if I tried to narrow in on a definition anyway or devise an experiment that could represent this, its definition would be fringe and unpopular. As the truth often is.

So if I attempt To name my my sources were: - my experience - lots of embodiment including specifically practices to produce depression in the body. Not a clinical depression (which I feel is as non existent and fake as saying I’m looking for the particles behind the atom when I quantum theory says that’s bs and the particle and the wave neither exist before nor after observation and just appear to represent the thing we observe in a way to represent it in the way the observers can perceive)(like they’re a proxy for something there we can’t really ever understand but only ever approximate, like the truth) - philosophical perspective and embodiment of different emotional states; with some training in shamanism and breathwork - studies and articles I’ve read over the years - being unorthodox and taking a perspective that lets me choose my own simpler definitions, to better understand and approximate whatever we are using language to describe and approximate.

What’s depression? A label for some state of a human being. Though not limited to human beings. I find it helps to introduce first principles ie whats depression in other animals? And from the shamans perspective, what’s it in the trees and plants and stones which I also know to be experiencing several of the things I as a human experience but in their own language. With this it’s definitely not what the mayo clinic called it. It might be a subset of that as it’s reduced to what’s true also still for the plants, other animals and even stones. I like to see it as something in the middle with facets of the mayo definition, and and the experiential one. And then reality is so weird anyways that you and I can induce depression in someone simply by suggesting it, the news by talking about it like fear and sickness has been studied to cause more fear and sickness in a populace. So then from my perspective again we have no standardized “time range” for what qualifies as something being depressed. What is “persistent” anyway as from the mayo definition. Who agrees on what makes it persistent or not, and will enough people agree namely those who get to choose what makes something depression? I doubt clear enough defining and agreement comes.

For depression: Am I or the rock depressed because we had a depression like embodiment exprience for a few moments on Tuesday? Or must that remain for at least 50% of my living experience from day to day? Well wait, who’s doing the timing? There’s not a single study that can ever actually check how long relative to someone’s personal subjective time exprience “depression lasts”. So it’s not inaccurate by our scientific definitions of depression (which by being scientific, should occur by consensus yet also are always up to change as consensus changes) to say I am depressed if I had a depressing experience due to sitting at a chair in a depressing posture for 8 hours at work and so I check off all the boxes and as soon as I get home or go for a walk it changes. The clinical approach says this qualifies, but does it really? Yes and no.

Something about science, evidence, studies, and sources all kind of feels like bullshit when you start looking at the definitions we use for phenomena we want to describe and study and then realize we all use our own self fitting definitions and then back that up and find evidence to support it, and even do something as silly as studying “depression” for decades and everyone else does this too so we ignore it and pretend it’s not happening. And that the research means something when it really doesn’t.

Sorry to respond this way; this was about the best I could do after all and much of this came out on a phone while sitting in heat so I could have done better. Anyway hope this was valuable for you and answered what you were seeking; this is the best I can do right now. Maybe you can help me understand this all better and are seeing something I’m not about this . Would love to hear your thoughts. And even what you’ve built and studied in this space.

Re: The Voice of Google

#139
post #28
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which product(s) are equal to the products richest people on earth use?

I mean… not to put too fine a point on it, but… jeevacation@gmail.com

ah. so this is a Jefrey Epstein email, not sure if its his. are you saying the emails implicate a difference in what systems the rich use versus normal people? something like that?

Re: The Voice of Google

#140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What have you looked through already and what kinds of sources do you consider reputable and trustworthy? Asking because there's a lot of trolling and hostility disguised as curiosity on hacker news lately, and I've wasted a lot of time engaging with these people. Not saying thats you or the guy above you, but I'm not open to spending my time only to receive a dismissive and hostile response discounting my sources wh…

Hi again > Those statistics are widely known and accepted. Do you need me to provide evidence from that? No need for that in particular. What I would appreciate evidence for is this part specifically: > the technical addiction and attention economy that has created more depression and a lower quality of life for most people on earth. Basically, a source or sources demonstrating all of the following: 1. "Technical add…

If I revise my original claim to this, it more accurately represents the spirit of what I was trying to say. As I believe you are focusing on the clinical application depression, this edit would misalign our interests.

> Google and other technology companies have expanded access to useful services, but they have also helped build an attention economy that can weaken people’s attention, sleep, connection, agency, emotional vitality, and quality of life at a massive scale-even when those effects do not fit the clinical definition of depression.

Post reply on HN