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

691–700 of 864 posts

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#691

Post by pseudalopex »

JamesBarney wrote: post #534
choppaface wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dr Gebru was talking with a lawyer before they fired her. Mitchell was likely contributing to the case because she herself was experiencing retaliation from Google. At this point it doesn’t really matter if it goes to the press or ends up in a complaint—- Google’s retaliation here is illegal. You can’t reproach an employee for simply talking to a lawyer and that’s exactly what Jeff Dean and co did.

Talking to a lawyer != running a script to exfiltrate confidential corporate documents, even if the purpose is to help you talk with a lawyer.

Legal counsel is a common exception to NDAs. Different jurisdictions have different specific rules.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#692

Post by virgilp »

angrais wrote: post #631
baryphonic wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree Google & "Big Tech" enables them. How does Big Tech create them, though? Universities seem to be filling that role.

Could you expand on how and why you think universities are creating such individuals?

Not sure how and why they are creating them, but it's definitely a fertile breeding ground. Look what happened to Stallman - no corporation could bring him down, but the activists did.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#693

Post by Wolfenstein98k »

GavinMcG wrote: post #492
throwaway3699 wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Racism must absolutely be measured by intention, not effects. The very definition of racism is somebody actively discriminating against another race. Any other definition just ends up discussing Marxist ideas like "systems of oppression" which go nowhere and actively harm the conversation.

No, you'd like to define racism narrowly. Not that I can get in your head, but doing so sure makes it easier to imagine ourselves as not complicit. But evil is all too often banal, and passive.

I refuse to be told I'm complicit in evil without a clear and definite example.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#694

Post by Clewza313 »

adenozine wrote: post #686
Clewza313 wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Staff at Google is L6, which is a mid-high rank at best. For comparison, fresh grads are typically L3, while a Fellow is L12.

What are these L levels? Is there a resource to understand them?

https://levels.fyi

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#695

Post by nickserv »

pydry wrote: post #675
randycupertino wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, I work in medical research and was headhunted by (but turned down) Juul to work on sponsored trials and research related to smoking cessation and health improvement in patients who are switching to pods. Per the article, "Google has recruited top scientists with promises of research freedom, but the limits are tested as researchers increasingly write about the negative effects of technology and offer unflattering…

It's funny how google started off with such a good reputation and managed to end up with "you can't expect them to be any better than drug hawkers".

The price of success I suppose.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#696

Post by pseudalopex »

JamesBarney wrote: post #573
pseudalopex wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

It isn't voluntary if the date and time is chosen for you. California allows the employer to choose the last day of work. Not the effective date of resignation.

"An involuntary leaving of work occurs when the employer is the moving party in causing the unemployment of an employee at a time when the employee is able and willing to continue working."[1]

Gebru said she would respond after she was back from vacation.[2] So she was willing to continue working that long at least.

[1] http://carules.elaws.us/code/t.22_d.1_subd.1_d.1_pt1_ch.5_ar...

[2] https://twitter.com/timnitgebru/status/1334341991795142667

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#698

Post by pseudalopex »

JamesBarney wrote: post #568
monocasa wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > In other cases, a claimant may give notice of resignation which is contingent upon factors within the employer's control, such as hiring a replacement. The employer does not become the moving party by securing a replacement. The separation is still a voluntary quit. > This sentence makes it seem like California is one of those jurisdictions. She didn't provide a legal notice of resignation for California law, bec…

The question is "Did Google verifiably lie?" I'm not trying to prove she "voluntarily quit" vs was "discharged" via California law. I'm arguing that Google used resigned in a way that wasn't a lie, and referencing California law to show how it uses the word resignation, and is therefore a reasonable use of the word. Did Google use the word resigned in a reasonable way? 1. Gebru submitted a conditional resignation, an…

California law says conditional resignations count when the conditions are met. Gebru proposed discussing a resignation date after she was back from vacation.[1] Those conditions were not met.

California law allows the employer to accelerate the last day of work. Not the effective date of resignation.

Gebru advised coworkers to stop writing documents about DEI initiatives. Not to stop work.

[1] https://twitter.com/timnitgebru/status/1334341991795142667

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#699

Post by tehwebguy »

ergocoder wrote: post #559
contemporary343 wrote: post #111

They also seem to have sidelined Samy Bengio (Yoshua's brother) who was the skip-level manager of the team and, as far as I can tell, backed both of them and continued to: https://twitter.com/L_badikho/status/1362892301979312128 As can be seen above, current team members state that Google is running a smear campaign against both of them. We should emphatically not take Google's words at face value here either. All of…

Timnit and her supporters are toxic. Can you imagine calling out your manager of manager on Twitter like this? https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1278569638532530177 Like wtf. This happened 6 months before Timnit was fired. I would absolutely not work with this person if they behaved like Timnit. She and her supporters are absolutely fired for being toxic. They are playing martyr.

> I would absolutely not work with this person

What would that look like, would you quit? Give your boss an ultimatum? Something else?

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#700

Post by pseudalopex »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #680
333c wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting "random words in quotes that people didn't actually say" is not conducive to productive and healthy discussion.

The quote is from the article and it appears in almost every article on Internet about this topic, so they at least they are not random words. Everybody say this is a Twitter message, at least some may have read it.

"literal act of violence" isn't in the article. I haven't seen it in any article about this topic.
Post reply on HN