Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation • Hacker News Board

Re: Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation

#291

Post by zozbot234 » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 2:13 PM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #290

zozbot234 wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Gut feelings are often surprisingly accurate, sometimes we all pick things up a lot earlier than our consciousness cottons on. ... We've figured out that good looking people are not more upstanding than ugly people. There, see the difference? You said it yourself - as it turns out, being good looking vs. ugly is not meaningful evidence as to whether you're going to treat others fairly. Being actively disdainful of…

Drummond is black. I'm not one for political correctness, but there is pretty conclusive evidence that a lot of non-blacks people think black people give off creepy vibes. The in-group favoritism bias is a very real thing and it is very reasonable that it manifests as a vague unsubstantiated feeling. Somebody saying they ran into him at a coffee shop and got what amounts to a feeling of bad vibes is literally not evi…

> but there is pretty conclusive evidence that a lot of non-blacks people think black people give off creepy vibes.

There's pretty conclusive evidence that a lot of people think 'people outside their in-group' give off creepy vibes, yes. It's not a black vs. non-black thing, it's literally that being together with 'familiar' groups of people makes you feel more comfortable than otherwise. And while this can be a source of unwanted 'noise', it can also be quite separate from the more specific feeling about a particular person's attitude. I'm pretty sure that if we asked OP about black males other than this guy, he/she would tell us that no, as a rule, they did not make him/her feel uncomfortable the way he did.

(After all, working at a firm like Google, in this day and age, involves being exposed to people of many diverse backgrounds and being willing to engage with them as peers regardless of how one might initially feel about their group identity. That's a pretty good antidote to ingroup biases!)

I did mention disdain as a possibility because that's perhaps the most common source of those "inexplicable" creeper vibes, and also because OP themselves seems to be drawing a contrast between these and the "friendly" attitude of the person they worked with.

Re: Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation

#292

Post by radu_floricica » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 3:05 PM UTC

Am I the only one not thinking there's anything too outrageous in the article? I've also read the medium article by the ex. It paints the picture of somebody that definitely doesn't get top marks in family, but ... well... he's not that much different from the average american. A standard deviation, maybe? He met somebody else, separated from the wife, tried to make a new family, failed, went back to the wife. Makes me feel a bit sorry for everyone involved, but that's it. I really don't see a demon.

If the bad part is moving the girlfriend in another department, everybody looks like they've been overly accommodating, honestly. Having the bosses's wife work in the same department is not fair to the other members of the team. "Hey, Bill, who do you think will get the big bonus this time? You or the bosses's wife?". The decision to be together was mutual - acting as if it wasn't is extremely insulting to her. Some consequences are positive and some negative, that's just life, and one is that they couldn't work together anymore.

I can't see anything else. Alleged affairs? Not that many, not while in a committed relationship, and to be perfectly candid, not unusual if they happened. And given the current popularity of poly, possibly accepted by everybody. Definitely not loudly protested at the time.

What did I miss that makes him the devil?

Re: Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation

#293

Post by apatheticschism » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 3:28 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #289

roenxi wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is totally unreasonable to go around commenting on third parties giving off creepy vibes of no consequence based on no evidence. Not to be too personal because a comment isn't the measure of a commentator but kcanini is basically saying nothing with as much negative allusion as can be put into a comment. It is a comment with no consequences, no relevant context, no observations and no argument. Gut feelings are of…

> Gut feelings are often surprisingly accurate, sometimes we all pick things up a lot earlier than our consciousness cottons on. ... We've figured out that good looking people are not more upstanding than ugly people. There, see the difference? You said it yourself - as it turns out, being good looking vs. ugly is not meaningful evidence as to whether you're going to treat others fairly. Being actively disdainful of…

>Being actively disdainful of others to the extent that you're giving off huge "creeper" vibes (perhaps unwittingly, perhaps intentionally!) can be evidence of sorts - at least in a very loose, "more likely than not" sense.

This statement shows a surprising lack of empathy or objectivity or even self-awareness.

Consider that Person A and Person B meet and that Person A gets the creepy vibe from Person B - for no clearly defined reason, it just happens.

Person B increasingly tries to socially interact with Person A and this puts Person A in a tough position because they don't like the creepy vibe that they get from Person B.

Person A continually tries to use social cues to try to deter the interactions from being frequent or even increasing. Person B just doesn't "get the clue", as it were.

It might be unfair or untactful for Person A to use contempt or disdain to get the interactions with Person B to decrease; however, we can probably safely arrive the conclusion that this might be a far more tactful route to use than just calling Person B a creepy cunt to their face, yeah?

The problem with your explicit inference is that Person B never has reason to take pause and consider that it was their creepy vibe that initially caused the situation to occur, much less their continued attempts at increasing interactions that caused it to exacerbate.

If Person B has the "it's never me, it's always them" mentality, then we can presumably arrive that the conclusion that this is ultimately what occurred; however, to arrive at the conclusion that Person A used contempt or disdain against Person B solely because Person A is the creeper entirely detracts and ignores (in a very subjective way) Person A's experience[s] with/around Person B.

Succinctly put: You're ascribing to malice (e.g.: creepiness) where another reason can just easily and just as validly be subjected, without even considering that possibility.

Re: Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation

#294

Post by leetcrew » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 3:31 PM UTC

asimpletune wrote: post #279

throw7 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is that a star wars quote???

Yes I believe that’s what Yoda says to palpatine in episode III.

which is a weird quote to use, considering palpatine went on to rule for a couple more decades after the big fight.

Re: Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation

#295

Post by goliatone » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 3:33 PM UTC

big_chungus wrote: post #214

toiletfuneral wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can anyone explain why they're downvoting this? I know anecdotally My employer constantly gets in trouble during earnings calls from shareholders for doing anything remotely environmentally responsible because it impacts margins. It's pretty clear capital has no intention of being ethical at the cost of profit

Because it's being phrased as "punishment", which implies some kind of punitive action. "Oh the greenies are putting trees over green, we'll show them! Watch your share price tank!" That's not what happens. It's a bunch of quants sitting and running the numbers forward a few years to estimate numbers and price accordingly, not a conscious decision to punish. The big traders don't really have a particular attachment t…

I understand your reasoning and appreciate you explaining the downvotes. I still think it could be argued that GP’s comment could be better understood in terms of “what” rather than “how”. It’s easy for humans to interpret the outcome of the algorithmic pressure as punitive. And I would say is also understandable that is interpreted that way generally and specifically in GP context with that quote about leftovers. As to the how, would it be possible NY hat humans/quants make algos that encode that believe?

Re: Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation

#296

Post by leetcrew » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 3:35 PM UTC

celticmusic wrote: post #253

nostrademons wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't really the site for people who want to create genuine social change in the world, other than through startups. The site guidelines say that what's on-topic is "anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity". Curiosity is more about knowing things than doing things. I think one implicit belief held by the folks who started this site is that if you do want to challenge entrenched power structures, the…

I love how you defended not trying to make the world better because HN has a ToS.

I think GP is merely suggesting that, if you are doing something truly subversive, it is best not to shout about it on a public internet forum.

Re: Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation

#297

Post by zozbot234 » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 3:47 PM UTC

apatheticschism wrote: post #293

zozbot234 wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Gut feelings are often surprisingly accurate, sometimes we all pick things up a lot earlier than our consciousness cottons on. ... We've figured out that good looking people are not more upstanding than ugly people. There, see the difference? You said it yourself - as it turns out, being good looking vs. ugly is not meaningful evidence as to whether you're going to treat others fairly. Being actively disdainful of…

> Being actively disdainful of others to the extent that you're giving off huge "creeper" vibes (perhaps unwittingly, perhaps intentionally!) can be evidence of sorts - at least in a very loose, "more likely than not" sense. This statement shows a surprising lack of empathy or objectivity or even self-awareness. Consider that Person A and Person B meet and that Person A gets the creepy vibe from Person B - for no cle…

> Person B increasingly tries to socially interact with Person A and this puts Person A in a tough position because they don't like the creepy vibe that they get from Person B.

If Person B is an empathetic, objective, self-aware person (i.e. not a Creepy Guy), they're of course not going to do that, They'll figure out that Person A is acting uncomfortable, for whatever reason, and dial back on the interaction as opposed to trying again and again in the same way. Perhaps they'll try a different "tack" if they feel that engaging with Person A is that important to them, but they'll still be way more careful about it than they otherwise would. Simply because it's the sensible, rational thing to do at that point.

As for Person A, the sensible thing to do would be to walk away from the whole thing well before they even get a chance to be made contemptful or disdainful. If they're unable to do even that then, well, there are ways you can call Person B a creeper to their face in a quite polite, respectful, and even plausibly-deniable way (i.e. Person B gets to save face!) and Person A should probably resort to them. That alone would be enough to break the vicious cycle of contempt.

Quite simply, the symmetry you're pointing at here just doesn't exist - being creeped out by someone is not the same as being a creeper yourself! Not even close.

Re: Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation

#298

Post by dgacmu » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 4:43 PM UTC

radu_floricica wrote: post #292

Am I the only one not thinking there's anything too outrageous in the article? I've also read the medium article by the ex. It paints the picture of somebody that definitely doesn't get top marks in family, but ... well... he's not that much different from the average american. A standard deviation, maybe? He met somebody else, separated from the wife, tried to make a new family, failed, went back to the wife. Makes…

He's not the devil, he just makes it extremely hard for alphabet to claim any moral authority (or that it's really being serious) about the issue of executives facing any consequences for misbehavior. It's pretty awkward to simultaneously say "we will never have another Andy Rubin case" and have a chief legal officer who dated (and mistreated) a subordinate.

Re: Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation

#299

Post by jessaustin » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 5:04 PM UTC

nl wrote: post #288

jessaustin wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignoring USA politics for a moment, can we admit that the current state of Syria is better for both residents and the world than the current state of Libya? I.e., that it's better not to completely destroy society, subjecting everyone who lives there to unrelenting death, violence, poverty, and slave markets?

Err I think you have that back to front? It's Syria that is mostly destroyed and has millions of refugees. Libya is bad but not quite as bad. I agree with your point that there is degrees of destruction though.

Yes they both have produced lots of refugees. The Bosporus is easier to cross than the Mediterranean, so more Syrian refugees have ended up in Europe. Lots of people died and had their lives destroyed in both wars. The Syrian conflict, even though it started later than that in Libya, is at this point largely winding down except for one location in which "rebels" still remain. The recognized sovereign government maintains public order and provides life-improving services. Libya OTOH is still entirely a hellscape of violence and privation. They have regular public slave markets, etc.

You'll see occasional media content stressing the horrors of Syria, but there's never anything about Libya. That's because reporters (justifiably) fear to go there.

Re: Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation

#300

Post by apatheticschism » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 5:06 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #297

apatheticschism wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being actively disdainful of others to the extent that you're giving off huge "creeper" vibes (perhaps unwittingly, perhaps intentionally!) can be evidence of sorts - at least in a very loose, "more likely than not" sense. This statement shows a surprising lack of empathy or objectivity or even self-awareness. Consider that Person A and Person B meet and that Person A gets the creepy vibe from Person B - for no cle…

> Person B increasingly tries to socially interact with Person A and this puts Person A in a tough position because they don't like the creepy vibe that they get from Person B. If Person B is an empathetic, objective, self-aware person (i.e. not a Creepy Guy), they're of course not going to do that, They'll figure out that Person A is acting uncomfortable, for whatever reason , and dial back on the interaction as opp…

>Quite simply, the symmetry you're pointing at here just doesn't exist - being creeped-out by someone is not the same as being a creeper yourself! Not even close.

You're being disingenuous in your argument. You're ascribing behaviour with the benefit of hindsight for a particular person (Drummond) and using that as a blanket definition for everyone else in the world that may be rude/disdainful. The equivalence simply doesn't exist and is in no-way emphatically true.

In fact, it's a rather far leap from the charitable position that gave the plausible deniability from the previous statement[s]: "...at least in a very loose, 'more likely than not' sense".

How do you propose to resolve this dichotomy that you're creating? Double-down?

For example, by your definition, wouldn't Gordon Ramsay automatically be a creeper? How about Simon Cowell?

How do you resolve your definition with the dichotomy created by reality demonstrated by their behaviour combined with their lack of being actual creeps (as far as anyone knows)?