281–290 of 309 posts
Thats not Googlespeak. Thats legal protection. Whenever a company is open to investigation you can bet emails will be searched and if something suggesting something borderline illegal is written there it can be used against you. A lot of companiea give such trainings to their employees.
Unclear how any of this means it’s not Googlespeak.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So then I realized that they were brain washed by the company internal communication to feel that anything annoying for Google was bad for them personally! I think your interpretation of this experience is incorrect. Their visceral reaction was against leaking specifically, not negative information generally. Part of the propaganda behind TGIF, the internal newsletters, and so on is the idea that this inside inform…
> While I'm sure you caught a big fish that day, I'm also sure it wasn't that big (come on: the retelling of this anecdote does not need quite that much exaggeration). I don't exaggerate that point, the sentence was not exactly that but something very excessive and very close to that. This is the intensity and violence of their feeling that shocked me to the point that I still remember this case after around 5/6 year…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment is peak HN. Congratulations.
The Just World Fallacy is incredibly strong in this one. Sure, the US imprisoned its citizens of Japanese ethnicity during WWII, a practice approved by its highest court, but they would never imprison Jewish people just for their ethnicity, right?
Actually if I put it that way, it's just hating Mondays. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yts2F44RqFw
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unclear how any of this means it’s not Googlespeak.
It's not clear to you how standard business practices aren't some sort of Google-specific Orwellian new-speak?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like you're comfortable with having all of your conversations transcribed directly to twitter! Let us know where we can read that.
I think that is an extremely false equivalence. While there's an inherent irony about Sergey and Larry's woeful desire for privacy, whilst buying yachts bought by stripping everyone else of their own... I think it's fair to say that a public company affecting the lives of billions has drastically less right to privacy than a private individual. ;) I'll leave you with a quote: "If you have something that you don’t wan…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I meant specifically, things like "Wait, who is this person? What did they want again? What did I tell them last time?" That's not stuff you put on a wiki.
This may or may not work for you, but I keep notes in a collection of Google docs. Depending on context, these are either shared with the other person (and usually editable by them) or is accessible only by me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> morphed from things around consumer harm to a new focus on harm to other ... businesses. As far as I know, it is actually the focus on "consumer harm" that is, well was, the new thing, introduced in the 1980s under Reagan, and it largely gutted antitrust law. And that was exactly the purpose. For much of that history, including the seminal breakup of John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil in 1911, the ruling antitrust…
Monopolies in the long term tend to lead to higher prices because without good competition what’s the incentive to sell with low profit margins? So, sell cheap for years, kill any competition, then the market is yours and you can do whatever you want to the inevitable detriment of the consumer. The consumer also looses in monopolies.
If there is only one buyer/seller then in order to fight their price making power, you can’t form a cartel (illegal price collusion!) but you can consolidate into another monopoly and push the monopoly price making power elsewhere in your benefit.
This is about being careful what you put in writing, because the discovery process for lawsuits will find your carelessly written email and opposing lawyers will take it out of context, and do you want to end up in court years later explaining what you meant? Google has so many employees that they need training to limit the damage from random chatter and speculation. It’s more cumbersome to have to talk about some th…
They also have a corporate email policy where mails get auto-deleted after 18 months, unless you apply labels or are on a litigation hold (which would make such policy completely illegal). The email policy has no other purpose than to limit legal exposure. There is no legitimate business reason for that policy. In fact, it actively harms institutional memory and is frankly Orwellian, IMHO.
This explanation was given to me by a corporate lawyer who was trying to figure out whether the same kind of expiration could be put on tickets in bug and project trackers, which would have been even more harmful to institutional memory than an email expiration policy.
I was in Google Ads from 2008-2010. At that time, there was a limit of 3 top ads and 8 right-hand-side ads. The top ads generated the vast bulk of the revenue. They were also in blue or yellow (I forget which, but one was WAY more lucrative than the other!) so it was very easy for the user to distinguish an ad from a search result. I just did the canonical $$$ search "flowers" on my Macbook. The entire first page was…
Holy shit. No wonder google doesn't give a shit about adblockers. Those people would be the ones who care about litigation and stopping this shit. Easy to let such a small % of users slide when the other 99% will willingly fall into the ad trap. This is insane: https://i.imgur.com/bdtvyXF.png
Interestingly, I tried the same on DuckDuckGo and it seemed almost identical: some inlined ads, shopping results, have to scroll down to find actual search results. (main difference: embedded non-ad results like wikipedia and news).
I was in Google Ads from 2008-2010. At that time, there was a limit of 3 top ads and 8 right-hand-side ads. The top ads generated the vast bulk of the revenue. They were also in blue or yellow (I forget which, but one was WAY more lucrative than the other!) so it was very easy for the user to distinguish an ad from a search result. I just did the canonical $$$ search "flowers" on my Macbook. The entire first page was…
At one time, this was the highest-priced ad in Google (idk if it still is), because personal injury lawyers were desperate to get clients.