Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Well, a hashtable. It's not public, but it wouldn't be hard to approximate from public data.
> It's not public Why not?
[deleted]
Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]
241–250 of 486 posts
Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm interested in why you believe it shouldn't be acceptable for leadership to express "dismay at the outcome of a democratic process." I assume you feel it is appropriate for leadership to express dismay about some things, so what makes democratic processes special?
Well, my position on the subject is complicated and it is a struggle to condense it down into something reasonable. Basically, there is no way whatsoever that being a capable and talented corporate leader makes your opinion somehow right. If anything, the comforts of great wealth and power make it less likely that their opinion actually represents the best interests of ordinary folk. So my starting point is that the…
I agree with you. Bringing up politics in the workplace is rarely appropriate, and the way Google does it here is not only inappropriate but very offensive. I definitely wouldn't want to hear mud slinging about my political views in a corporate environment. This whole meeting is simultaneously childish and deeply disturbing.
Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a blatant false dichotomy. You can do meaningful work that will generate value/change that is largely unaffected by the political landscape (within reason). Sure every company would love tax breaks and subsidies but let's be realistic here. > I would much prefer my company's leadership to acknowledge the politics inherent in our work and openly state their motives and point of view. Most do. Companies just te…
Choosing to ignore politics and your ability to change it is itself a political stance.
I wasn't aware that cats were political.
What a silly argument.
Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]
#244Part of my decision for leaving Google was the insane left leaning bias within the company. I never outed myself as a conservative person because I've heard coworkers equate republicans to monsters.
Maybe being conservative just isn't that smart to begin with?
THIS is a not-insignificant part of the problem. right here. You jumped straight out of the gate with calling the OP stupid. Not even a feigned attempt at some sort of discussion or debate.
You saw the word "conservative" and BOOM it's right into the Us vs. Them, Me vs. You, Good vs. Evil. I just don't see how that is healthy, at all, for anyone or anything including the country. It's childish. Social media and karma/upvotes/likes/karma/fake-internet-points, whatever you want to call it, has devolved us into kids on the schoolyard.
United we stand, divided we fall. grow up
Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is literally what Google was founded on. Their core technology behind their initial success was pagerank, an algorithm whose sole purpose is to manipulate what people see. They have stayed dominant through a combination of market forces, and keeping their algorithm near (or, IMO at) the top of the market for generalized search [0], and have leveraged this competency in other markets (video, ads, etc). Beyond jus…
I value political neutrality in the workplace, so I have a lot of in-principle issues with what is being shown here right from the get-go. I didn't wind the video back to find the exact quote, but we now have publicised evidence of senior leadership at Google who stood up and said 'obviously our values are not the same as a big chunk of Americans'. Clearly a lot of them are specific Hillary supporters, a candidate so…
> EDIT I'm just going to add this in because it just doesn't sit well. It shouldn't acceptable for leadership in a workplace to stand up and express pain and dismay at the outcome of a democratic process.
Isn't this exactly what they do whenever they lobby to change an existing law?
Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]
#246This video presents as if the leadership is coddling a room full of kindergartners sad over the loaner class pet going home. Company full of children.
Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they are being genuine when they say their plan is to combat fake news with AI; their business is built around AI. It is one of their core competencies. I think they are going to fail, and quietly increase the human involvement once they realize that their AI isn't good enough. Then they will slowly scale back the humans as their AI improves, until the next controversy when they realize that they still need h…
> I think they are going to fail, and quietly increase the human involvement once they realize that their AI isn't good enough. Then they will slowly scale back the humans as their AI improves, until the next controversy when they realize that they still need humans. Exactly. AI is not good at subjective decisions of qualitative data. For example, nobody knows any political candidate's net worth apart from IRS, until…
"Fake news" has lost all meaning in the intervening years, but at the time, it is hard to remember, we were concerned about essentially phishing websites that made themselves out to be (say) CNN, but were not.
As others have said, evaluating trust on the internet using computers (call it AI or not) is literally Google's core competency.
Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]
#248Twice it was mentioned that the cause of WWII was boredom. Is this actually a real theory?
> Is this actually a real theory? I'm not a professional historian by any means, but I think Ernst Nolte's opinion (he was a German historian) that WW2 was actually an European Civil War fought between fascism and communism is right (you can read an introduction into the whole discussion on his wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Nolte ). His basic idea was summed up by another historian, Norman Davies (yo…
"People in the States and generally speaking in Western Europe tend to forget how much communism (Bolshevism as it was called back then) was seen as a threat after WW1."
Because it really was, Europe was pretty lucky that Soviet army was defeated in 1920 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Warsaw_(1920)] before it managed to go further to the West - that was the ultimate communists goal, as they wanted to spread revolution across whole continent.
In that way not only Eastern and Central Europe countries would experience the fun communism brings: poverty, inequality, secret police murdering opposition members and priests, lack of freedom.
Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you're doing meaningful work, you're changing things in the world. I don't accept that as a truism; most work is maintaining the historically unprecedented comfort that we enjoy as a society and I think that is meaningful. Providing food is meaningful, providing shelter is meaningful, extracting raw resources is meaningful, taxation and welfare are meaningful, taxation and government services are meaningful. I c…
> Providing food is meaningful, providing shelter is meaningful, extracting raw resources is meaningful, taxation and welfare are meaningful, taxation and government services are meaningful. I could go io but that covers the basic point. I'm amazed to read that you don't think these things don't change the world. And more so that you don't think these things are political! Agriculture is political. Land development i…
The problem is when they become involved in political issues that are unrelated to their economic activity.
Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]
#250Part of my decision for leaving Google was the insane left leaning bias within the company. I never outed myself as a conservative person because I've heard coworkers equate republicans to monsters.
I find it reasonable, even somewhat logical, to label racists, sexists, homophobes, trans-phobes, immigrant-phobes, xenophobes, anti-semitists, islamophobes, etc. as monsters. Don't you? I'd be interested to hear why not?
Personally, anyone who is actively seeking to enact hurtful policies against targeted individuals who have committed no crimes and shown no treat, in order to benefit themselves, could be logically qualified as a monster. An atrocity is defined as a cruel act. In that sense, if you support and encourage such acts, it seems appropriate to label you a monster.
This has been true for most of history. At least with today's common morals, it seems to hold that historical act of cruelty are deemed as enacted by monsters.
And marketing wise, republicans seem to have greatly associated themselves behind such people and policies. It's unfortunate if you fall in the camp only for everything else. Like say you just support gun rights, small governments and pro-life, because you truly believe that is best for everyone's livelihood, success, stability, prosperity, safety and happiness. Yet condemn and disagree firmly against acts of cruelty towards innocents. You might have people wondering why then you'd be willing to compromise one over the other, and question the truth of your condemnation.