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

Results of the GitHub Investigation

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 514 posts

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#481

Post by zimpenfish »

gfodor wrote: post #280
wankerrific wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think its pretty telling that this an anonymous account and that no one is will to attach their name to the Medium post.

Not really. You'd have to be an idiot to attach your name to this given the shitstorm twitter would unleash upon you for questioning the narrative. No idea if it's true but in this environment anonymity is probably the default.

If this person has proof (documentary, whatever) that their narrative is correct, they should step out from behind the easy cloak of anonymity and show it. Until then, they're really nothing more than a troll.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#482

Post by moron4hire »

bjterry wrote: post #258
leccine wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know a company hire another companies to perform a check. They usually expect everything ok. Audit comes, it turns out there is a security hole in the software, or your books are off or you threat employees badly. Nobody wants these, yet everybody hires external companies. You think that you can bribe a legal firm to give you a green flag on harassing employees and they gonna risk their reputation on 50K USD? I d…

It is widely-believed in the investment banking industry that you can find a firm that will provide a fairness opinion for virtually any transaction. They are a little bit more costly than $50K, but not more than an order of magnitude for small transactions. Mergers and Inquisitions says, "As you might guess, banks never say a deal is 'unfair' – the Opinion is just a rubber stamp to justify the deal to investors."[1]…

Ugh. It is precisely the contractor's place to question the client. "Not my problem" or "just following orders" is the worst thing about consulting. I have, on several occasions, refused to force analysis into expected results. And look at me! I'm still alive! I made more money this year than the previous two combined. Ethics must always be forefront. And if you slip, get back on it, mistakes in the past do not excuse more mistakes.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#483

Post by antjanus »

GregorStocks wrote: post #201
Bahamut wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best talent probably won't be so quick/shallow/naive to pass judgment so quickly. It probably will challenge their recruitment of women though.

The "best talent" would probably rather work at a company without these kinds of allegations than at one with them. They might be unfounded, but why take the risk? If you're the "best talent," you've got a lot of other options.

The problem is that every (large enough) company really does have issues like these, no matter where you go. And it's not that they should be ignored but what should be looked at is the infrastructure to resolve them.

They're hiring new HR people, GOOD. They're adding training for employees (probably much to the annoyance of those employees), good.

These means that it'll be easier to make the places safer and better for everyone. That's what I'd look at.

Interestingly enough, I'd say that smaller startups suffer from larger biases. Basically if the founders don't like you for some reason or another, you're in for shit. If a "CTO" who worked at the company since the beginning doesn't like you, you're fucked as well. And there's no HR to turn to.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#484

Post by theorique »

cynicalkane wrote: post #379
theorique wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She isn't helping her case with this ranting list. I'm certainly not saying that she's acting out some kind of "hysterical female" trope, but she is kind of acting in a kind of stereotypically "hysterical female" way. Legal counsel would probably suggest she stick a cork in it rather than make herself look bad.

Men are also capable of angry twitter explosions with the properties I'm talking about. I don't see why you felt the need to bring up the "hysterical female" stereotype. It doesn't add anything to the conversation.

A lot of internet feminists and others have pointed to the gender dimensions of the issue. I figured it made sense to address it straight off. Since she is kind of ranting.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#485

Post by JackFr »

GregorStocks wrote: post #201
Bahamut wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best talent probably won't be so quick/shallow/naive to pass judgment so quickly. It probably will challenge their recruitment of women though.

The "best talent" would probably rather work at a company without these kinds of allegations than at one with them. They might be unfounded, but why take the risk? If you're the "best talent," you've got a lot of other options.

I think it's not so much the allegations of a hostile work environment that would keep people away, it's the idea of working a company with ridiculous drama that looks like it came out of a bad high school movie. It indicates an unhealthy number of non-grown ups in positions of responsibility.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#486

Post by bryanlarsen »

malandrew wrote: post #464
bryanlarsen wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Access to internal chat may have given her access to much of GitHub through HuBot. https://hubot.github.com/

Access to emails is one thing. Access to the internal public banter and coordination of work hardly strikes me as worrying based on all the discussions I've seen at my current place of work and past places of work. Any information sensitive enough to keep from your significant other is probably too sensitive for a shared internal conversation system available to all employees. Yeah, there's stuff that you wouldn't wa…

HuBot let's githubbers deploy code to production, amongst lots of other things. In other words, access to internal chat is a much bigger deal at GitHub than it is at your workplace.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#487

Post by Tloewald »

Tloewald wrote: post #480
gamed wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reductio ad absurdum is actually a completely legitimate method of argument. There is nothing fallacious about it whatsoever.

RAA is actually viewed with some skepticism in some branches of logic (not so much because it is invalid but because it can be more easily misused in arguments where the underlying assumptions are not apparent). RAA is kind of analogous to the Axiom of Choice if you like — some logicians go out of their way to avoid it. Not disagreeing with you, just raising a point.

Here's a relevant link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionistic_logic

Incidentally (a further parallel to the Axiom of Choice) Intuitionist Logic is also referred to as Constructive Logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_mathematics

One branch of constructivist mathematics eschews the axiom of choice, and all do not allow proof of existence by RAA on non-existence.

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#488

Post by dfc »

sliverstorm wrote: post #445
dfc wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know a lot of people that bring work home because the living room has better reading light than the SCIF?

No, people bring work home because they need to put in some extra hours, but do not wish to stay at the office until 9PM.

So you know a lot of people that take things out of the SCIF because they do not want to stay late?

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#489

Post by bitlord_219 »

cpncrunch wrote: post #292
bitlord_219 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you consider this relevant?

It would appear to be relevant because she describes herself as an engineer, and because she thought the reverts of her code and bad performance reviews were due to sexism.

Are you saying that good engineers can't have a sense of humor?

Re: Results of the GitHub Investigation

#490

Post by cpncrunch »

bitlord_219 wrote: post #489
cpncrunch wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would appear to be relevant because she describes herself as an engineer, and because she thought the reverts of her code and bad performance reviews were due to sexism.

Are you saying that good engineers can't have a sense of humor?

No.
Post reply on HN