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

About This Googler's Manifesto

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 404 posts

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#71

Post by searealist »

interpol_p wrote: post #61
searealist wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The manifesto author is arguing for equality of opportunity. It's possible to have this and end up with different outcomes because of differing abilities or priorities. Also, Whites are _underrepresented_ in tech relative to their percentage of the population. edit: The parent edited their comment to remove the "white" qualifier from "men".

And women are much more severely underrepresented in tech. So why argue against fixing that? It will simply make the tech industry better.

This is a strawman. Neither I nor the manifesto author has argued in favor of sexism.

Why did you call out "white men" in an article about representation at Google? It doesn't make any sense when white people are underrepresented at Google.

edit: Now the parent has edited their comment to remove "in favor of sexism".

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#72

Post by interpol_p »

smsm42 wrote: post #63
interpol_p wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And women are much more severely underrepresented in tech. So why argue against fixing that? It will simply make the tech industry better.

I don't think the original author argued against fixing it, I think he advocated different approach to fixing it, based on different understanding of what "it" is.

By eliminating programs intended to help increase diversity, by "de-emphasising empathy" and by making Google more of a safe space for people with viewpoints similar to his own. Got it!

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#73

Post by smsm42 »

letalvoj wrote: post #68
smsm42 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet, if we look at Google's track record, they have much better luck with technical problems than with people-interaction problems. Search driven by algorithms - excellent. Social networks - epic fail. Advertising backend - money juggernaut, mostly driven by clever algorithms, as I understand? Mobile OS backend - great (well, ok, not too bad). Mobile OS frontend - meh. Chrome is kinda borderline, but I think technolo…

First of all failure of the Google+ shows absolutely nothing important for this discussion. Secondly it's just your personal opinion that the Android is ugly. Anyway, how can you even compare UX/UI design decisions with the companies ability to handle work-place environment and stuff diversity? So yes... You are wrong like lightyears away wrong.

> First of all failure of the Google+ shows absolutely nothing important for this discussion.

Depends on what you mean by "this discussion". The manifesto which originated it - certainly not. The broader point raised about interaction between technology and sociological/humanitarian aspect of technology - I think yes.

> Secondly it's just your personal opinion that the Android is ugly.

It's not about "ugly", it's about... being very engineer-like in it's UI? As for my personal opinion, I don't mind it that much - I live in command line, after all. But I kinda learned that UI that engineer is comfortable with and UI that end-user is comfortable with are somewhat different things...

> Anyway, how can you even compare UX/UI design decisions with the companies ability to handle work-place environment and stuff diversity?

I don't and I think you completely misunderstood my point. Or, more precisely, you completely understood nothing about my point. I'm sorry I couldn't explain it better.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#74

Post by alexmat »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #50
alexmat wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope you're joking. If not, I am reminded of the scene from Idiocracy and being on the receiving end of: "You talk like a fag and your shits all retarded."

Intended in fun only. Hope I didn't give offense :-)

That was my first assumption, and none taken :)

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#75

Post by CalChris »

smsm42 wrote: post #70
CalChris wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're kind've chasing your tail there. I wasn't aware that libertarians would be against alienating conservatives but then totally ok with alienating women because Hayek.

> I wasn't aware that libertarians would be against alienating conservatives Because it's only not OK to alienate people who we agree with, but the idea of having civil discussion with people we disagree with... who needs that? Just call them names, chase them out and be done with it! Do you think this is the libertarian way? Where did you meet libertarians like these? > then totally ok with alienating women because…

I do not hold libertarians in any high regard. I generally find that ism to be a flag of convenience and that would definitely be the case with the OP.

Again, the OP is concerned with Google alienating conservatives but then is completely oblivious to his alienating half of the population.

Because what? Would you prefer Edmund Burke?

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#76

Post by interpol_p »

LyndsySimon wrote: post #57
interpol_p wrote: post #2

It's just embarrassing at this point that an engineer at a well known company like Google even thinks like this. (The original author, not Yonatan.) Reading the original manifesto felt like something my 17-year-old self would write. Too clever and completely oblivious at the same time.

> It's just embarrassing at this point that an engineer at a well known company like Google even thinks like this. (The original author, not Yonatan.) Is this not exactly the sort of reaction that the author is speaking against when he refers to "viewpoint diversity"?

I'm sure the women who work with him love that his "viewpoint diversity" considers them to be more neurotic, less able to deal with stress, and less suited to the high demands of a senior Google engineering role than himself!

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#77

Post by interpol_p »

searealist wrote: post #71
interpol_p wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And women are much more severely underrepresented in tech. So why argue against fixing that? It will simply make the tech industry better.

This is a strawman. Neither I nor the manifesto author has argued in favor of sexism. Why did you call out "white men" in an article about representation at Google? It doesn't make any sense when white people are underrepresented at Google. edit: Now the parent has edited their comment to remove "in favor of sexism".

Here is where the author argues for sexism (from his TL;DR)

> Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

The implication here is that equal representation of women at Google is bad for business. That women aren't in tech and leadership positions because of biological traits.

This is sexism.

Right here. This point and its thorough embedding in every aspect of the article.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#78

Post by ukj »

interpol_p wrote: post #76
LyndsySimon wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's just embarrassing at this point that an engineer at a well known company like Google even thinks like this. (The original author, not Yonatan.) Is this not exactly the sort of reaction that the author is speaking against when he refers to "viewpoint diversity"?

I'm sure the women who work with him love that his "viewpoint diversity" considers them to be more neurotic, less able to deal with stress, and less suited to the high demands of a senior Google engineering role than himself!

Not than himself. Than men.

You understand how Gaussian distributions work, yes?

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#79

Post by goldenkey »

interpol_p wrote: post #76
LyndsySimon wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's just embarrassing at this point that an engineer at a well known company like Google even thinks like this. (The original author, not Yonatan.) Is this not exactly the sort of reaction that the author is speaking against when he refers to "viewpoint diversity"?

I'm sure the women who work with him love that his "viewpoint diversity" considers them to be more neurotic, less able to deal with stress, and less suited to the high demands of a senior Google engineering role than himself!

Well..its a fact. Woops, facts can be hurt. :-/

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#80

Post by dsacco »

smsm42 wrote: post #62
zorpner wrote: post #4

Perhaps more interestingly, the author does not appear to understand engineering. This guy gets it. It's a deep temptation to abstract engineering away from humanism, but the idea that code can solve problems is an immature understanding of software. People have the problems; people provide the solutions. Code is a tool & intermediary, and hardly essential to the act of problem-solving.

Yet, if we look at Google's track record, they have much better luck with technical problems than with people-interaction problems. Search driven by algorithms - excellent. Social networks - epic fail. Advertising backend - money juggernaut, mostly driven by clever algorithms, as I understand? Mobile OS backend - great (well, ok, not too bad). Mobile OS frontend - meh. Chrome is kinda borderline, but I think technolo…

In what way is Chrome "kinda borderline"?

If you mean borderline in terms of success, there are only four or five meaningfully used web browsers. Of those, Chrome has the largest desktop and mobile marketshare, respectively.[1]

If you mean borderline in terms of Google's ability to release a product that appeals to a sense of usability and design aesthetic instead of just raw technical excellence, I would say that Chrome handily accomplishes that. In my opinion, the Chrome user interface very clearly resonates well with people, and one of the biggest reasons for its continued success is Google's understanding of what users want and how they like the use web browsers, not just Chrome's capabilities and performance.

Web browsers have a lot of surface area for "user interaction", and I think Chrome's interface really streamlines a lot of what people organically do when they're browsing. It's not just excellence under the hood, it's a studiousness that carries over into empowering users. As a specific example: I don't think that Chrome is a technically superlative application platform, but the ability to use it as a platform for running other apps has made life much easier on Linux when there are no native apps for certain things.

_______________

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#...

Post reply on HN