231–240 of 290 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's not possible for a corporate entity to have one. Is it really not possible? Lots of corps are controlled by one or two people. They can decide what the company espouses, no?
If you want profits, the market tells you what to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
European companies aren’t much different so just be sure to check where you stand first before you’re SURE you’ve actually escaped.
I don't think there's a big risk the European startup I work for now is involved in bombing brown people in the Middle East, actively accelerating climate change or dividing society for engagement. Seems like a much better bet for my values, at least.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So was being a concentration camp guard. What the hell. We are talking about ads on the computer.
So we have established that "just a job" is not unpolitical? It's just that you draw the line somewhere between enabling mass surveillance and being a concentration camp guard.
- Soldiers and police are a thing in society. They use violence in ways deemed just by society. I do not think their role is immoral.
- From experience I know that the number of people who can look at the incentive structure they are in and decide to operate outside it is basically 1%. Humans just aren’t wired that way.
- So I do not know in what ways a Nazi soldier could stop doing what they were doing - except in the same way you are free to escape industrial society and capitalism, by moving into a cabin in the woods in isolation.
This is why leadership is so essential. The leaders we choose and the systems we build around them determine what people will actually do.
Individual moral failure is self-inflicted not systematic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The author of this article disagrees: > “Don’t Be Evil” wasn’t just a slogan of often-referenced Googliness—it was a north star for teams making hard calls. It definitely counts for something that at least one senior leader felt the slogan was relevant for decision making.
Most people that one would describe as evil do not see themselves as evil, but rather see what they're doing as justified. Saying you're not going to be evil means literally nothing. Don't be the bad guy, ok, but if you think your goals are noble enough then crossing lines becomes acceptable. Google sold everyone on the "we're going to change the world for good and improve everyone's lives and make all information ac…
Not me of course. I’m making the world a better place by introducing ai into your Facebook feed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
everyone _works for someone else_, it's entirely about what the structure of that relationship is. You don't make your own food do you? Build your own car? Make your own git repos? Seems like you might want to have a better view about who you work for.
Your comment has nothing to do with what I wrote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The author is not cynical enough. Do you going around telling people how virtuous you are? No, good people just try and be good. The slogan was a red flag right from the start.
At the beginning of Google it meant "we will not be like Microsoft" and it was good marketing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet it directly speaks to the comment it was replying to. It makes the point that RSUs are generally multi-year; so if you're getting them with _any_ frequency, you never get to the point of "the last RSU vests".
It remains privileged. I have my golden handcuffs too, probably most on HN do. That doesn’t change the reality expressed.
> If you have an X that Y
> If you have an X, it won't Y
to which you added
> Your statement is privileged
The fact that it's privileged to have an X is irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion was about whether or not an X will Y. And it started with "If you have an X".
> I have my golden handcuffs too, probably most on HN do
I don't. And I expect I'm not in the minority here. If you're going to throw rocks, you might want to ponder your own privilege before you start tossing accusations.
moral clarity usually sharpens the moment the last RSU hits the brokerage account
This is incredibly annoying to see in the real world. People who pontificate values on LinkedIn but work for a company they disagree with, only to see them stay until they hit 4 years and leave. No idea how they think they have any moral high ground.