211–220 of 535 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
After 16 years at Google, i'm pretty sure he doesn't have to work another day in his life.
He wasn't an engineer, so I'm sure his compensation was much lower than what you think.
Eng managers, directors, and VP's make tons more money than engineers.
These stories leave a bad taste in my mouth. It hasn't yet gone to court, so the guys allegations could be really be anything from the God's honest truth all the way to a complete fabrication. Yet there is a huge amount of irreparable damage by public stories like this. I was once personally on the receiving end of a complete false sexual harassment allegation from a coworker almost at random (someone I had almost no…
Why do people put themselves in these situations at work? I'm nervous having even 1 drink with work colleagues in todays day and age, let alone getting plastered 3 times with the same people after an incident.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
After 16 years at Google, i'm pretty sure he doesn't have to work another day in his life.
He wasn't an engineer, so I'm sure his compensation was much lower than what you think.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You make it sound like the allegations against Assange were completely fabricated and factually false. The charges were dropped because the statute of limitations expired, but that doesn't say anything about his actual guilt/innocence.
That's not quite right actually - charges weren't dropped, because no charges were actually ever laid. Allegations were made, the case was dropped for lack of evidence, he was allowed to leave the country, another prosecutor later re-opened the case and then an Interpol Red notice was raised for 'questioning'. Anyway, if you change that to "the case was dropped" then that is technically correct, but the whole case wa…
One of the few things we do know was that the Swedish prosecutor was threatened when she wanted to drop the case ("Don't you dare get cold feet").
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> that is because HR exists to protect the company, not the employee. This honestly makes me think that a lot of the story is heavily exaggerated. Why would HR entertain a hypothetical that could only get them in trouble?
> This honestly makes me think that a lot of the story is heavily exaggerated. Why would HR entertain a hypothetical that could only get them in trouble? Because it ordinarily doesn't get the company in trouble? HR cannot see into the future, you know, and from their PoV, ignoring a male's complaint against a female doesn't usually result in any media firestorm, while investigating a female on the word of a male does…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do you, but your inaction is going to ensure more and more men go through this.
More men are going to go through this regardless of whether he sues or not. I can't imagine people who would do this kind of thing being deterred by a small civil claims court case somewhere random.
If you want to change that, men have to hold themselves accountable for protecting themselves against women.
You might not like that reality, it’s not a good one, but it’s true.
These stories leave a bad taste in my mouth. It hasn't yet gone to court, so the guys allegations could be really be anything from the God's honest truth all the way to a complete fabrication. Yet there is a huge amount of irreparable damage by public stories like this. I was once personally on the receiving end of a complete false sexual harassment allegation from a coworker almost at random (someone I had almost no…
I considered getting a lawyer involved because I feared this could blow up, but was talked out of it by my boss, who asked me to apologize and "let's leave it at that".
It was interesting watching Google's tolerance of alcohol slowly decrease from 14'-'20. I stopped going after my fourth or fifth company event, the last being where a fistfight broke out between two upper management individuals.
I thought Google had alcohol at work until '14. Some companies do, but prob not in US.
I can't say I have seen any fist-fights, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know about the New York Post. Maybe it is guilty of publishing false and dishonest reporting. But I would also point out that a lot of people here on HN (in past discussions) and elsewhere have noted that the New York Times and the Washington Post also publish creatively interpreted news (or outright creative writing) at times. Despite this news articles from these sources are considered independently without…
I'm struggling to see how that would be relevant to the assertion the New York Post is not a credible publication. Seems like whataboutism to me.