Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Apple, Google, and other tech companies conspired against their own workers

whenrulesdontapply.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 289 posts

Re: How Apple, Google, and other tech companies conspired against their own workers

#271

Post by jedberg »

jimmy1 wrote: post #264
jedberg wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why are builders not flocking to CA to build? NIMBYs. Builders want to build, but the people who already own won't let them in most cases. I live in Cupertino. They want to build 2000 units next to my house. Most of neighbors are against it because it will "change the character of the neighborhood". That is true, it will. But I'll be the farmers who lived here in the 1960s said the same thing when all of our houses…

I have heard the NIMBY argument many times before but I just don't buy it. It's too easy of a target. Plus there is so much land. Ok fine, won't build in your backyard, I'll build in the next yard over. We have this exact situation in a town called Davidson, NC where I am from. Builders can't build there. So they built in the hundreds of thousands of acres immediately right next to it. Problem solved. Plus people exe…

They've already done that. Average commute times in the big cities are 70+ minutes each way. There is only so far people will commute regardless of price.

That 117k/yr shortfall is not evenly spaced. All the jobs growth (and therefore the need for housing) is localized in the cities. They can build 200,000 units in the central valley where there is a ton of land, but no one would go there because there are no jobs, and it would be a 3 hour commute each way to the city.

The only solution is to build up, not out. We've already done all the building out that we can. And the NIMBYs are blocking the "up" growth because they want their cities of single family homes.

Re: How Apple, Google, and other tech companies conspired against their own workers

#272

Post by TeMPOraL »

baud147258 wrote: post #269
TeMPOraL wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are prices in US restaurants given net, instead of gross?

At least prices in Canada are net, tax is added when paying.

Interesting. In Poland, and most EU places I've been to, the prices in restaurants and stores are almost universally gross, to make it easier for the buyer to know how much they'll pay.

Re: How Apple, Google, and other tech companies conspired against their own workers

#273

Post by baud147258 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #272
baud147258 wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least prices in Canada are net, tax is added when paying.

Interesting. In Poland, and most EU places I've been to, the prices in restaurants and stores are almost universally gross, to make it easier for the buyer to know how much they'll pay.

Yeah, I got surprised a few time when I was there to study. Also the "mandatory" tipping was unusual, compared to Europe

Re: How Apple, Google, and other tech companies conspired against their own workers

#274

Post by erikpukinskis »

rightbyte wrote: post #147
erikpukinskis wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No offense to PowerPoint fans! I've observed people making pointless presentations to shore up their brand as employees, not to facilitate trade. It has other uses but... Have you not seen what I describe? That would be a useful data point for me if true.

Not really but I guess that's dependent on company culture. You work at a stack rank place? Where I work Power Point is mainly used to make presentations that are easy to read on a projector screen (as it should be used). On many places it seems to be used as a general document writer application ... so what we emotionaly associate with Power Point might differ alot.

Actually I think this memory of mine comes mostly from Academia about a decade ago! Not really in the workplace.

Re: How Apple, Google, and other tech companies conspired against their own workers

#275

Post by arthur_pryor »

arvinsim wrote: post #235
josho wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree, in our current political climate it’s not going to happen. In the interim I would be willing to settle on significant punitive damages. Eg. Make getting caught very expensive and those corporate nudges will start nudging in the directions of protecting employees, consumers, etc.

It should also be down to the individual level so that people down the the chain of command won't have the incentive to protect the executive in fear of losing their jobs.

also, take a page from our transit providers: "if you see something, say something." and be proactive about it. don't wait till it's too late.

if we're all whistleblowers, people high up the chain will fear having the whistle blown on them. don't just leak illegal things, leak immoral things.

grassroots transparency. do it anonymously if you have to. hold your bosses accountable.

Re: How Apple, Google, and other tech companies conspired against their own workers

#276

Post by stirfrykitty »

Robin_Message wrote: post #260
stirfrykitty wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on the situation. Let's say you have a hostile war captive (enemy combative of a high rank) who is the ONLY one who can provide you with critical, war-winning details. You (metaphorically) would want to do whatever it took to secure those details. I've been in hairy situations before. Everything Hollywood depicts goes out the window. Embedded reporters get a newfound respect for troops once they ride out just…

The problem with this kind of consequentialist ethics is that thinking the end justifies the means generally makes you very vulnerable to manipulation by others who tell you what the ends will be and then ask you to do the means. Remember, Guantanamo also had taxi drivers and aid workers in it. How many of them are you willing to torture in order to find the terrorist you've captured and maybe get some information th…

You (metaphorically) still didn't answer the underlying question, namely, wouldn't you do anything it took to save a loved one? The answer isn't grey, it's black and white. The answer is always YES to doing what it takes to save one's family. You have a moral imperative to do whatever it takes to keep your own safe, up to, and including, your own life. You fail your family morally if you fail to act when you could do so. People like to throw in these trick questions like, "If you could save your own child, but nine others would die; or you could save the nine and your own would die. What would you choose?" Save my own child every time.

Re: How Apple, Google, and other tech companies conspired against their own workers

#277

Post by MockObject »

stirfrykitty wrote: post #276
Robin_Message wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this kind of consequentialist ethics is that thinking the end justifies the means generally makes you very vulnerable to manipulation by others who tell you what the ends will be and then ask you to do the means. Remember, Guantanamo also had taxi drivers and aid workers in it. How many of them are you willing to torture in order to find the terrorist you've captured and maybe get some information th…

You (metaphorically) still didn't answer the underlying question, namely, wouldn't you do anything it took to save a loved one? The answer isn't grey, it's black and white. The answer is always YES to doing what it takes to save one's family. You have a moral imperative to do whatever it takes to keep your own safe, up to, and including, your own life. You fail your family morally if you fail to act when you could do…

So, then you'd kill 6 billion to save your own child.

Re: How Apple, Google, and other tech companies conspired against their own workers

#278

Post by stirfrykitty »

MockObject wrote: post #277
stirfrykitty wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You (metaphorically) still didn't answer the underlying question, namely, wouldn't you do anything it took to save a loved one? The answer isn't grey, it's black and white. The answer is always YES to doing what it takes to save one's family. You have a moral imperative to do whatever it takes to keep your own safe, up to, and including, your own life. You fail your family morally if you fail to act when you could do…

So, then you'd kill 6 billion to save your own child.

That is patently ridiculous and taken to the extreme and you know it. We are talking reasonable possible situations (not world events) that you may find yourself in. And yes, if I had a choice to save an entire building or just my kid, it's my kid every time. I fail them morally if I do not. I'm not responsible for other people's family, just my own. Now... if I could save my kid and everyone else, then yes. But my kid first.

Re: How Apple, Google, and other tech companies conspired against their own workers

#279

Post by MockObject »

stirfrykitty wrote: post #278
MockObject wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, then you'd kill 6 billion to save your own child.

That is patently ridiculous and taken to the extreme and you know it. We are talking reasonable possible situations (not world events) that you may find yourself in. And yes, if I had a choice to save an entire building or just my kid, it's my kid every time. I fail them morally if I do not. I'm not responsible for other people's family, just my own. Now... if I could save my kid and everyone else, then yes. But my k…

Hardly ridiculous, it's inescapably implied by

> The answer isn't grey, it's black and white. The answer is always YES to doing what it takes to save one's family.

You didn't really need to make such an absolute point, but you did.

Re: How Apple, Google, and other tech companies conspired against their own workers

#280

Post by thereare5lights »

masonic wrote: post #236
thereare5lights wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. "Just following orders" isn't now and has never been a valid excuse That's not true. Just look at Lt. William Calley.

"following orders" was specifically not an excuse, hence him being convicted . He didn't serve additional time due to other technical issues in his prosecution.

What an awesome way to split hairs.

"Howard Callaway, Secretary of the Army, was quoted in The New York Times in 1976 as stating that Calley's sentence was reduced because Calley honestly believed that what he did was a part of his orders—a rationale that contradicts the standards set at Nuremberg and Tokyo, where following orders was not a defense for committing war crimes.[98]"

[98] Marshall, Burke; Goldstein, Joseph (2 April 1976). "Learning From My Lai: A Proposal on War Crimes". The New York Times. p. 26.

Sure sounds like an excuse to me. Now that I think about it, you're not splitting hairs, you're just flat out wrong at best.

Post reply on HN