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

James Damore and three others end Google suit

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 1001 posts

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#541

Post by Khaine »

alexpetralia wrote: post #142
magic5227 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a society tells a woman she's not likely as interested in something, guess what profession she is more likely to choose? Not the one she's being told she won't be happy with.

Is there any evidence that would convince you that interests can diverge, independent of society (nurture)? Your argument relies on the assumption (yes, an assumption, not evidence) that society exclusively determines our interests. You do not admit a role for biology. There is little scientific evidence that supports this view.

You mean like that in more gender equal societies, women are less likely to pursue a degree in STEM. Its a well known phenomenon called the gender-paradox[1]

[1] http://eprints.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/4753/6/symplectic-version....

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#542

Post by UncleMeat »

ALittleLight wrote: post #477
glenda wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t see what’s wrong with calling it political... it surely isn’t scientific. The opinions he expressed seem like naive political theories based on his understanding of gender and society, which is an extremely nuanced topic.

In what way is the Damore memo not scientific? It cites academic research, presents evidence, I think the claims it makes are actually the mainstream ones. I realize asking you to debunk the whole memo may be a bit much, so can you just point to the single most consequential unscientific part of it? I read the memo and was horrified by how badly people treated him because of it. To me it seems like a rational and wel…

Citing research is fine. If his memo had been a list of papers with no commentary it would have just been weird and blown over.

The problem is when you synthesize ideas from research without expertise. The problem wasn’t his citations. It was the conclusions he drew from the citations and the policy proposals that he made in his document.

“It has citations” is not a valid reason to consider something well argued and scientific. Even flat earthers include citations.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#543

Post by conanbatt »

ravenstine wrote: post #390

Damore was not offered a chance to receive forgiveness by either the company or the outrage mob, therefore I don't respect what people generally have to say about whether what he did was right or wrong. It's astounding that people are still debating this in this very HN thread. A society of any size that makes virtue claims while simultaneously adding an undue price to being wrong or insensitive deserves to be mocked…

There was also unacceptable levels of vitrol against damore within the Google communications. I remembre reading physical threats, doxxing, insulting etc. A swath of people behaved in a reprehensible manner in response, in a way that would clearly be fired or reprimanded in a day to day situation.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#544

Post by balls187 »

> companies in Silicon Valley and beyond have instituted workplace rules designed to protect employees with alternative viewpoints and prevent bullying, Dhillon said.

Lipstick on a pig.

Racism is racism.

Sexism is sexism.

If you want to be a racist, sexist person, do it on your own time, not on the company dollar.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#545

Post by xiphias2 »

jpdb wrote: post #393
free_rms wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but if you're talking about Googlers, that's bullshit, they're fine. 200k/yr, 300k/yr+ worth of fine. It's great to have empathy for people in a less fortunate position, and yes we have a lot of problems in our society, but FAANG software engineers are arguably the least oppressed people on the planet.

Is this a class reductionist argument? Are you saying, for example, a black women at Google doesn't deal with adversity and is no longer effected by politics because they make a large amount of money?

Right now a hard working black woman would have much harder time kicking herself out of Google than a white man. Also women are especially encouraged to go for promotion, and as a white man it just made me want to put in the work to go for promotion less there.

What I learned over time is that it's just better to work 8x5 days, don't do overtime/weekends, because it's not worth it anymore. For 8x5 hours of work Google is amazing.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#546

Post by M2Ys4U »

syrrim wrote: post #503
glenda wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you in theory, but it’s a bit different. If he is making the workplace less comfortable for particular groups of people then I certainly would have no issue firing him. You are free to hold any belief you want, but once you’re in my ear with some misinformed ideas that are potentially hurtful to a large group I am free to tell you to be quiet or leave. Of course, it’s your right not to listen to me... bu…

>If he is making the workplace less comfortable for particular groups of people Not just any group of people, naturally, but particular groups. Politics necessarily makes certain groups uncomfortable. A discussion of wealth redistribution makes the rich incomfortable, should such things be impermissible? Politics enables certain groups to be favoured, and others to be disfavoured. This is a good reason to ban politic…

>This is a good reason to ban politics in general, but if you allow it, you need consistent rules regarding which sorts of views are permissible, rules that aren't themselves political.

It is impossible to have apolitical rules regulating which political discussions are allowed.

Hell, just banning political discussion - any political discussion - is a political act. It's always a political act.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#547

Post by albinofrenchy »

waheoo wrote: post #448
sz4kerto wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see what you mean I think but it's really not a mathematical given. If you have two groups where group 1 with size S scores X with variance V==0.4X on average in a given skill (score means competence), and group 2 with size S/2 scores 0.8X with variance V on average; then it's possible to recruit a set of people from group 2 and the same number of people from group 1 so that the average competence level of people h…

I dont think you understand the hiring pool available to mountain view at all. The rate of female attendance in comp sci has been in decline since the 70s. At my university it was quite literally 100 to 1. You cant have a 50-50 hiring pool without some fuckery there. And for what its worth i absolutely do not accept that the avergage female engineer is not as good as the average male engineer. If anything, they are a…

What University has 100 to 1? That's way, way more unbalanced than the typical cs program.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#548

Post by saagarjha »

tomnipotent wrote: post #409
DonHopkins wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Count your blessings, and read the articles I posted about Evan Spiegel, then you'll feel like you met one of them, then you'll want to take a shower, and then you'll appreciate all your decent open minded friends you're lucky to have. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23124729 And it's not just Tech Bros, it's Frat Bros in general. See: Jared Kushner. https://www.businessinsider.nl/coronavirus-kushner-impact-te..…

Journalist using the words "frat" in an article doesn't make something true. The only place I see this term slung is in the media and HN, or people making up abstract bad guys to vent their anger on.

Fraternities exist, and they have a culture associated with them. Visit any college campus (well, not right now) and you’ll find out exactly what it is.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#549

Post by UncleMeat »

ralfd wrote: post #385
jacobmoe wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's been endless discussion about Damore. In particular podcasts you'd think that the firing of a random engineer at Google ranked alongside 9/11 as a defining event in modern history. If I circulated a memo to my co-workers that not only opposed a new policy from management, but did obvious harm to the expressed intent of that policy, I might be fired. It doesn't matter if the memo I circulated would have gotten…

My understanding is that it was "normal" for Google to have these kind of discussions on internal boards. A remnant of the libertarian message board and usenet culture of the early silicon valley. They only fully cracked down on political speech like a big boring company last year: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/08/23/google_politics_cha...

It was never normal. The politically charged boards were always playing with fire. Damore also shared his ideas outside of these spaces where it was even less “normal”. What might be okay to say in an opt-in discussion board about politics may be less okay to say in a training session, for example. Time and place and all that.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#550

Post by lawnchair_larry »

foldr wrote: post #423
spangry wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, because the cause is uncertain, we should not discuss female under-representation in software development at all?

I don't think that the cause is uncertain. Broadly speaking, the cause is sexism. What I'm saying is that there is no evidence whatever for a biological cause, and it is harmful to speculate wildly on biological causes in the absence of evidence.

There is far more evidence for biological causes than there is for sexism.
Post reply on HN