211–220 of 290 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article clearly lists at least two ways they are significantly different now.
Great, two whole ways!! Totally a different company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
identity pol: "people organize and advocate based on shared demographic characteristics" What in this post is possibly identity politics? It sounds like personal ethics to me. I don't appreciate identity politics, and when you muddy the term with having a spine and anything you don't like you make it harder to debate the actual problems the term is normally associated with.
The person youre replying to also employed the term TDS in recent comments, which I believe refers to Trump Devotion Syndrome. Muddying waters and making debate impossible are his goals. He hoped to antagonize everyone with his trigger word.
> Google was a different company 9 years ago. No it wasn’t.
Translation: “My GSUs that I received at $35 and upwards for the last 10 years have made me enough money such that I can now finally make the “moral” decision that I’ve always wanted to do but was willing to swallow until I made enough money. Now I can pretend I was always the moral person that I purport to be, even though not much has actually changed except my financially-improved courage.”
> Google was a different company 9 years ago. No it wasn’t.
actually it was. they were no angels. but a majority of devs wanted to do good. now everyone wanta to make a quick buck no matter what. im surprised dave is still there too. probably can't let it go...
moral clarity usually sharpens the moment the last RSU hits the brokerage account
Can anyone in this industry really say goodbye without posting it? We act like artists, believing our ideals will illuminate the world with our moral compass. This is surreal.
> Google was a different company 9 years ago. No it wasn’t.
It's different now because his stocks have vested.
“I’m shocked shocked to find out my pay cheque and stock money came from selling ads.”
“here are your winnings sir”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We are talking about ads on the computer. Not just ads on the computer. TFA also discusses AI for surveillance, weapons, etc.
Let me restate. There is no equivalence between killing people in camps and having an office job at Google.
But it's also not harmless to work at a company which makes tools/components/software for killing people. It wouldn't be "just an office job". Sometimes it's hard to make the call, e.g. a spreadsheet can be used to tally inventory or prisoners at a work camp, but when your company is directly involved e.g. in enabling surveillance by a nation whose actions you consider immoral, then it's probably time to quit.
If the mention of the US or Trump as the motive for quitting makes anyone irritated, consider the same situation if it was a guy saying he won't work for a company which is developing AI to enable Putin to better identify dissenters or bomb Ukraine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The blog post is from June 19th. Google Doc from June 17th. My guess? He shared the Google Doc link with his peers, but forgot that Google Docs links are public for anyone who knows the link, so someone just forwarded it to oblivion, and he was forced to publish that as blog post. The addendums kind of reflect that. That's a great reminded that any Google Doc with a shareable link is basically a public document for a…
> That's a great reminded that any Google Doc with a shareable link is basically a public document for all intents and purposes. As per design. Google gives you sufficient control over access permissions. If you make it public, you have to know anyone anywhere can see it once they get the URL. I frequently share Google docs and sheets links widely and to entirely unknown readers. That is part of the utility of the to…