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

Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 864 posts

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#571

Post by ALittleLight »

ksec wrote: post #372
jamesmishra wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the opposite. Jeff Dean is known for exceptional kindness and humility. He is the kind of person that wouldn't have a problem with a researcher standing up for ethics. Therefore, the implication is that anybody Jeff Dean cannot bear is an unbearable asshole.

>Therefore, the implication is that anybody Jeff Dean cannot bear is an unbearable asshole. And yet Internet / News Media seems to take it another way. I will have to wait for Google's PR machine to do their work.

Does Google have a particularly effective PR machine? I think people like Google because of things like search, Maps, Gmail, YouTube, Android, etc. - not because they are some PR wizard.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#572

Post by knorker »

posguy wrote: post #565
cornel_io wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've said this before, but if it's not accurate then whoever said it publicly should be fired immediately because that is actionable if it's a lie. Google has extremely good lawyers and a PR machine that cares what they say. There's absolutely no way that they are plainly making it up.

Google has concealed and defended executives that are known sexual harassers: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andy-rubin-google-settlement-se... Google will happily take a slap on the wrist and pay out another few hundred million, as they have done just a few months ago. Might even pencil out PR wise to ensure Google controls the narrative on why these two employees were fired.

That's the difference between saying, and not saying.

Silence is not legally actionable (in this case). Saying false things is (in this case).

You can't compare the two.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#573

Post by JamesBarney »

pseudalopex wrote: post #547
JamesBarney wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > In P-B-39, the claimant gave notice on October 24 that she was quitting effective November 15. The employer permitted her to work only until October 31. The Board held that the claimant was discharged... Next line > On the other hand, if the employer continues paying the claimant's wages through the announced leaving date, the separation remains a voluntary quit

There wasn't an announced leaving date.

To get back to basics, the definition of resign is "voluntarily leave a job or other position."

It doesn't mentioning leaving at the exact date and time you choose.

She didn't want to work @ Google anymore, and she told them she didn't and she'd find a good time to leave with her boss. Google responded with "now is the best time to leave".

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#574

Post by logicchains »

cmdshiftf4 wrote: post #561
anonygler wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything is a "literal act of violence" to these people. Google is run by naive idealists who hire activists in droves and are then surprised to realize that those people are a bunch of unemployables.

Google, by virtue of its sheer influence in the industry, is primarily responsible for the activist-driven grief that has shat itself all over the tech industry in recent years. So fuck them. Watching the toxic crops they've planted and tended to go for their own creator's throats is nothing short of delightful.

"Go woke, go broke"

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#575

Post by knorker »

systemvoltage wrote: post #485
Crash0v3rid3 wrote: post #387

“After conducting a review of this manager’s conduct, we confirmed that there were multiple violations of our code of conduct, as well as of our security policies, which included the exfiltration of confidential business-sensitive documents and private data of other employees,” a Google spokesman said in a statement. This feels pretty cut and dry to me. Meg exported business material from the company. That a fire-abl…

Meanwhile, Timrit is spinning up more choas on Twitter: https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1362886704361791488 At this point, I am moving past all this drama. This corporate soap opera televised on Twitter needs to cease. If the person fired thinks that it was illegal, they should settle this in the court with Google. A company can fire anyone for any reason that's legal just the way you can leave the company for…

Yeah, Timnit is Trump, yelling BS on twitter but wisely choosing to not lie in court.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#576

Post by [deleted] »

totalZero wrote: post #551
marricks wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s pretty cool we can just take Google at it’s word after a 5 week investigation with literally no details coming out. Google also decided to drop this bombshell on a Friday the same day they are announcing a rebranded ethics team. It’s clear they wanted to bury this story and the leaders of the old team. I for one don’t plan to in any way give Google the benefit of the doubt here...

Some of these "AI ethics researchers" seem like wingnuts, and their profession appears to serve more of a PR purpose than a business purpose. What am I missing? Why are they so essential? Are these people the canaries in the coal mine, or do they simply exist because of paranoia and political correctness?

[deleted]

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#577

Post by im3w1l »

carapace wrote: post #481
svnpenn wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is wrong with you? Why do you talk like that? It's like you take a normal sentence, then swap out some random words until it no longer makes sense. It's not cool, it's just weird.

Instead of getting rude, you could have just searched "one finger points out, three point in" on DDG: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffcm&q=one+finger+points+out%2C+th... First result: > 'When you point a finger at someone, remember there are three pointing back' ...

What makes it hard for me to read is mainly the comma-placement, which is quite different from the verbal pauses you'd make when reading it, and break up rather than separate the logical parts. I found myself asking "what does it mean to point in rule?" Italics or quotes would have helped.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#578

Post by kmlx »

monocasa wrote: post #391
Crash0v3rid3 wrote: post #387

“After conducting a review of this manager’s conduct, we confirmed that there were multiple violations of our code of conduct, as well as of our security policies, which included the exfiltration of confidential business-sensitive documents and private data of other employees,” a Google spokesman said in a statement. This feels pretty cut and dry to me. Meg exported business material from the company. That a fire-abl…

The rumor going around is that she thought she was going to be retaliated against, and the documents were her backing up some of her emails in case she was fired illegally to discuss with her lawyer.

with employees like these who needs competitors...

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#579

Post by [deleted] »

monocasa wrote: post #391
Crash0v3rid3 wrote: post #387

“After conducting a review of this manager’s conduct, we confirmed that there were multiple violations of our code of conduct, as well as of our security policies, which included the exfiltration of confidential business-sensitive documents and private data of other employees,” a Google spokesman said in a statement. This feels pretty cut and dry to me. Meg exported business material from the company. That a fire-abl…

The rumor going around is that she thought she was going to be retaliated against, and the documents were her backing up some of her emails in case she was fired illegally to discuss with her lawyer.

[deleted]

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#580

Post by knorker »

yuliyp wrote: post #563
NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I know, since I'm worried I'm going to get fired for vague non-specific reasons, I'm going to directly violate company policy and get terminated for cause" is an odd game plan.

"company policy" at large corporations is not designed to do anything other than provide cover for the corporation to do what it wants.

Is "no e filtration of company data" an arbitrary "gotcha" policy?
Post reply on HN