Whats up with the name? Google didn’t surrender.
Dunno, just found it interesting and thought it might be constructive.
Clickbait titles. They’re all the rage.
1 Like
fanboy who loved the company and everything … he thought it stood for.
Irrational guy. Let’s sympathize.
that all changed on a 12 hour flight from China. On that flight he drafted what is now known as the google memo.
Idle mind is a… For twelve hours he didn’t consider the ramifications of being an hero? He knew where he was working, ffs.
He dared to think different.
No. He didn’t. He compiled fairly common thoughts on the subject. EDIT: And substantiated them well.
The vid goes on to appeal to the people whining they don’t get to say what they mean in spite of the fact they repeatedly proceed saying it ad nauseam.
Interesting alleged connection to Dr Petersen.
I have one possible takeaway after all the talk we’ve had here:
Google needs to be watched, but more importantly it needs to become replaceable by alternative similarly convenient solutions, which may require change of patent laws, let’s change those laws today, let’s use Open Source yesterday. I don’t mind less convenient solutions, but the current trend is convenience (often even a placebo convenience) and little money goes towards the path of less convenience.
I don’t give a damn Google may or may not lose the competitive edge due to ideological inbreeding. Companies age, take fewer risks, and then die. Horribly smashing about in agony for a couple of decades, if we are unlucky (like with the cable TV companies). I don’t mind Google going to shits any more than Microsoft and Apple going to shits. They aren’t my friends or family, just people trying to invade my privacy by all means available to them.
Of course, Google seems to be about to inconvenience quite many people who mistakenly use Google as a means to practice free speech anonymously in a non-public (i.e. privately owned) space. Except free speech wasn’t legally designed to be practiced anonymously, and can’t really exist outside a public space. But hey, drama.
Perhaps it is interesting to ask what public space is and isn’t today? Is there actual public space on the internet or is it all corporate owned?
Is it more difficult for the government to protect your public space rights by replacing it with corporate owned ersatz public space, or by properly managing tax-funded public space?
(And yes, I am talking internet as a public space, vs physical public space.)
This thread… ITS ALIVE!!!
just adding this for anyone who may be interested. Awkward programmer ahead, takes about 10min for the guy to ease into the conversation.
3 Likes
Pretty much what I expected.
The left goes straight to thought policing and “re-education” when they get any amount of power.
This is pure corporate-level sectism and a fine example of how the extreme left, left to its own means and out of balance, repeatedly and successfully makes the extreme right appear to be a less repulsive alternative to themselves.
Kind of like when one goes to a party with a really ugly friend that makes one look like a catch. And than the ugly friend gets laid and not oneself 
. Because life is a mystery, and extremism isn’t.
Indeed.
Freedom of speech needs to apply to more than just what government can limit. Your boss shouldn’t be allowed to fire you for your personal politics.
OR, it should be illegal for companies to push candidates or political beliefs on their employees.
OR just make it illegal for anyone to discuss politics in the workplace. I kind of like the idea of an “if you can’t play nice you can all shut the fuck up” option as egregious as it would be.
I’m not sure that you can make it illegal. But there’s nothing stopping the companies from enforcing such a rule internally. If I had a company I wouldn’t allow any political discussion to take place. It’s bound to create a divide between the workforce and potentially to create a hostile environment. And because of that, someone who’s otherwise good at their job could lose their job.
The issue there is you end up with what’s happening here.
Companies banning only certain types of political speech.
We have a simple rule that we may speak about anything not work-related for as long as it doesn’t prevent anyone from focusing on their work. This includes politics. If you can’t respect the person you are talking to enough and be observant enough to take a hint when you obviously make them uncomfortable on any subject at all (they don’t want to talk about it, and it isn’t work-related) and change that subject to something else (how about something work-related?), you will have to talk this through with the management in a day or two, if you and the other person don’t make acceptable amends on your own. You scream at each other, we’ll talk to each one individually and see if you guys need to get a room and talk it through on your own. If you can’t solve that simple problem and respect each other, one of you, or both, gets to go.
We just don’t tolerate toxicity and lack of focus. Some banter helps focus, some doesn’t. It is a balance. We find it better to make an effort than to talk legislation and policies. I can assure you we are very diverse in where we put our votes. If we are respectful we may find we like each other in spite of any opinion differences. That’s how it’s always been also in my own experience - it is more important to work with each other than against each other. A house divided against itself cannot stand. That’s it.
In truth, the only people I know who get to talk anything to anyone at any time they want are unemployed, or talking to someone is minimal in their line of work. Everyone else simply has to watch their mouth.
I think this is what you end up with anyway. There is no rule-based solution. Only different degrees and shapes of exclusivities and priorities.
1 Like
That’s why you need regulations to put the leash on businesses and protect the workers. That’s why you need strong unions and politicians who work for the people instead of corporations.
The problem here is Google’s ability to fire someone for something as benign as this. Almost anywhere in Europe you’d have to seriously fuck up to get fired. Firing offenses are strictly defined by law. They’re not arbitrary like they seem to be in the US.
1 Like
I disagree on unions unless there is something in place to prevent the corruption that inevitably comes.
I’m a little loath to revitalize this thread, but did find a very good piece by another ex-Googler, of somewhat higher status who had already left the company when the ‘manifesto’ made its rounds. I found it a very good read.
2 Likes
Damn, he lays into him.
I did not. From the article:
I found it hard to take seriously when the author started burning a strawman in the first sentence. Damore literally outlined ways to make software development more appealing to women. So when the author claims Damore’s point was “we should stop trying to make it possible for women to be engineers, it’s just not worth it.” that is an outright lie.
2 Likes
Unsurprising.
The problem with requirements like that is does the job truthfully require a female…or a caucasian…or [insert race/skin color/sex/gender/faith/protected category here]? Where does one draw the line? How does one prevent this position from creating a slippery slope of discrimination?
The author is good at offering backhanded compliments and refuting his own argument. He tries to sound professional, but he comes off as a petulant child. There are one or two points he brings up that merit discussion, but the tone of the document ensures there won’t be any.
One woman’s opinion isn’t going to decisively confirm or refute anything discussed in the memo. That’s tokenization. If enough women commented on it, we may be able to reach a consensus though.
2 Likes
What is surprising is that the author even mentions one of Damore’s suggestions later in the article: making programming more collaborative. He dismisses this by saying that all programming is inherently collaborative, but speaking from experience (though admittedly not at Google) there is a difference between working on a team and pair programming, something that someone with this author’s experience has to understand.
I can understand how someone would have some honest criticism of Damore’s memo, I do myself. But I just wish people could be honest, and cut out the histrionics. The author said he would expect some of Damore’s coworkers to punch him in the face. If he’s serious then he doesn’t have a high opinion of his former female coworkers’ emotional stability.
What makes you think they’d have to be female to disagree so vehemently?