Well, there is 0 barrier to entry into recruiting profession. It's the sink-or-swim last resort of people with useless college degrees. Yeah, their job can be done by decent scripts 60% of the time. Of course, if you have half a brain, you can spot such a script almost immediately. And you know that the job very likely doesn't exist (90% of them are just data mining employee data).
It's invisible hand rather than magic hand. And it's invisible not because it's some secret super-conspiracy, but because it's comprised of all the people participating in the market. Oh, and it works when it's allowed to work. When people are allowed to express their wishes by spending money on what they want to spend it on. When there is a litany of laws which get in their way, you don't have a free market and you don't have people expressing their wishes. You get layers of middle men who don't know what you want, but try to convince others that they speak for you and express your wishes for you.
IBM managed to convince Cobol programmers that the world is divided into "mainframe" programmers and "PC". This is so inculcated into their brains that many of them still use those terms. I am not sure if a smart phone is an IBM or a PC, but IBM mainframe Cobol harkens back to the days when the entire os memory model allowed for no more than 640K of memory. But as long as you convince everyone who is willing to listen that not being one of "yours" is one of "others", you are golden. Just sprinkle some "open source" dust on it and it'll owrk. Oh, go ahead. Show me how to compile (open source) Docker with the network cable pulled out.
That would mean that what the lawyer claimed wasn't true. If their lawyer makes the argument that they were good at bargain hunting, it's valid to assume that he is not lying. Despite their reputation, lawyers cannot knowingly present false facts in a courtroom. So it wouldn't benefit him to state facts which are only disproven if this ever gets to trial. In fact, if the facts the lawyer claims to be true are, in fact, false, then he just gave an easy win to the prosecution. They just have to disprove his claims. And then the jury would never believe anything he says. And if the facts support the conclusion that they were good bargain hunters, then they had to have done it without lying at any point. Here's another possible scenario: buying a gift card gets you 2-3% discount on a purchase. And then you buy gift cards with gift cards until you are paying next to nothing on the next gift card that you buy. If the website didn't have protections against something like that, then I would consider this to be above water. This is no different from what traders do. If Lowe's made public offers which allowed the public to trade with Lowe's at a disadvantage to Lowe's, that's bad business, but it's not being a victim of a crime. Offering others to do something which results in your own financial losses is something that happens all the time. Sometimes it's even deliberate (think of selling of merchandise for pennies on a dollar to avoid the cost of restocking or garbage pickup). I can totally see a few scenario in which companies would sell gift cards at a huge loss (trying to expedite ending a contract with a 3rd party, for example).
Yes, generally, AC in, garbage out. I agree with you on that.
What you think it sounds like and what actually happened aren't the same thing.
Well, the article doesn't say what actually happened. So I'll judge what it says based on what it says rather than based on what really happened. Because what I am judging is the validity of the stated conclusions from the stated premises.
It sounds like they discovered a way to combine a few offers to reduce the purchase price to zero or close to it. If Lowe's made those offers (intentionally or not) and the couple didn't change the pricing through hacking the system, this is indeed just high-tech bargain hunting. If they changed any of the site's content (even if it's client-side code), then it's manipulation which could be considered hacking. But if all they did was take advantage of the offers, Lowe's made them, then it's just criminalizing of getting a good deal.
He is a loving and supportive father of a daughter who converted to Judaism. He is the 1st President to have more Jewish grandchildren than non-jewish ones. If you say that hete of Jews is not a necessary part of being a fascist, then you are belittling the tragedy of Holocaust to the point of being antisemitic.
How do you take someone between two such completely opposite worldviews?
You don't antagonize them, for starters. How do states market lotteries? Buying a lottery ticket is against one's self-interest. It's a tax on not knowing math. And yet people can be marketed to. How did they convince everyone that talking about presorting their own garbage is chic (aka "recycling")? Fear is not the only motivation. And it's a very poor motivation for people who have already been gilt-tripped on this particular subject (ie, the ones who have an extensive set of memories of dismissing these fears).
Calling Trump a fascist is straightforward unmitigated antisemitism. In fact, it's not even avert anti-semitism. Implying collusion between Trump and RF government (after all intelligence sources have stated that no such collusion existed) is overt antisemitism. Calling Trump a Russian-backed President is therefore an overt antisemitism. Even if you try to claim that you meant something other than collusion by saying "Russian-backed", you definitely reached for this ambiguity deliberately.
1st thing people learn in clinical psychology is that you cannot reach the patient if you don't accept their world view. You can only navigate in their world view because any attempts to challenge it will sound very similar to what they have already heard multiple times when they were challenged on their world view. And by reminding them of how they reacted to it last time, the memory is reinforced. Anyone creating a marketing campaign should have known this.
Do you understand that believing empathy is a handicap is known as sociopathy?
No, inability to experience empathy is a sociopath. Inability to suppress empathy makes it impossible to function in situations in which, as the phrase goes, "cooler intellect prevails."
You and James Damore were hurt somewhere along the line and now you believe women working in tech are to blame.
No, that's absurd. His memo was encouraging a change in personal training. It was not encouraging a purge. If you want to read any kind of frustration into his motifs, it seems to come from attending too many meetings in which man-bashing views were uttered with impunity. You may think that's no big deal, but for someone who thinks that being chastised on this account is uncalled for, it may come off as undeserved reprimand.
Anecdotally, since you seem to be on a high horse to slay some imaginary immoral dragon, my math PhD thesis advisor was a woman and all of my best math teachers were women. So, personally, I actually find the experience of all the people having difficulties with women in STEM to be quite at odds with my own experience. But I wouldn't dismiss the complaints of men who feel like they are repeatedly accused of sexism and other boarish behaviors which they themselves never even contemplated. Most people just nod along in these seminars and take these accusations as the cost of doing business. He took it to heart and try to disprove the accusation while trying to provide alternative strategies for achieving the stated goals. And he got steamrolled. I maintain that this is a problem with our legal regime more than anything else.
You understand the words "affiliation" and "orientation" are not the same, right?
You do understand that the words "green" and "cyan" are not the same thing?
In order for the firing to be based on perceived political affiliation, it's enough to show that he had a perceived political orientation. In other words, if he was fired for thinking like a Libertarian, it's not necessary to show that he was fired because he was thought of as being a card-carrying Libertarian.
But, in his case, it's slightly worse. Because the paper only advocates listening to Libertarian voices in order to create an environment more amicable for women.
If he believes that empathy is a handicap and he argues that women have a biological tendency to fall victim to this handicap and need tools to compensate for it and argues that forcing everyone to have a handicap is not a solution, then firing him for saying such a thing, instead of engaging his argument, is tantamount to suppressing a voice which attempts to argue for solutions for a perceived handicap. Since gender is a protected class, this could be a firing of an advocate of women's rights (because he is advocating, even if wrongly, for a solution to a gender-rooted problem). The fact that his solution involves advocacy for the engaging in conversation of Libertarian voices (as a method rather than as a goal) becomes a secondary form of discrimination here.
It would appear that way. Because the reason given for his firing was not true and anyone who would read the memo he wrote would know that. Presumably the CEO read the memo if he felt the need to end his family vacation to deal with this... Certainly if he didn't read it, given that it was only 10 pages, it would not have been for any reason other than some hope for legal fiction of being able to claim plausible deniability.
So, what is his political affiliation? Do you know? And was he fired for political affiliation?
That's not how it works. Political affiliation is not established solely through party membership. Espousing a point of view which is prominently a part of a certain political movement's platform is enough to create a perception of political affiliation. And firing someone for perceived political affiliation, while pretending not to understand that what he wrote was fact-based, is bona fide discrimination based on political orientation (even if he doesn't have one but only came off as having one).
What "political affiliation" do you believe James Damore to hold?
Regardless of his personal beliefs, he argued for inclusion of equality-of-opportunity-over-equality-of-outcomes opinions to be part of the conversation. It doesn't matter that everyone tries to brand him as an exclusionist. His words don't. And he got fired because Google was too scared to take an intellectually honest stand. Well, as legally-protected (in California) and policy-allowed (through allowing of extra-curricular activities) speech, he was entitled to saying what he said. And he distributed it privately. He didn't force this paper on anyone. He shared it with a few people. He didn't leak it to the press (as far as we know). So he didn't embarrass the company or cause its legal troubles. Think about it for a few seconds before you foam at the mouth. He wrote a paper. That's all. It was a well-research, albeit unpopular, opinion. It didn't interfere with his doing his job. Even if Google didn't solicit extra curricular opinions, it would still be awful to fire him for writing a paper that people didn't like. The fact no one seems to be able to make an argument against him without making up some lie is also very telling. If what he did was that awful, then there should be easy arguments against it which do not involve lies.
Grow the android platform? How much bigger do you want it to become?
Big enough to be useful. They can run every microwave and every toaster, too. But that won't make it a platform. It will make it a firmware. A successful platform creates an ecosystem and opportunity for others to contribute. Android has been losing ground as a platform and gaining ground as a firmware. My Google Maps app on Android phone was actually freezing the phone to the point where it could only be restarted by pulling out the battery. And it was doing it consistently until I downgraded the app to the version from 4 years ago. A bunch of native Android apps don't work anymore. Certificates don't upgrade even though there is a certificate management background service running. I don't see any reason for any developer to learn Android development. Oh, and I also forgot to mention that Chromebook is dead as a platform. It's waaay past its peak.
Now it's time to move on to the Cloud and AI related things.
They have lost AI to Microsoft. Permanently. They have lost 2nd place in the cloud to Microsoft. By choice. They concentrated on making it OSS and hoped that it would improve adoption. Microsoft concentrated on making their cloud offerings learner-friendly and shot past Google in terms of adoption even though they came to the market much later.
Do you write a 10-page memo to your company for every meeting they had that you think was a waste of time?
I don't. But Google does. Unless these are meetings regarding diversity.
Did the company ask him to do that?
Not in those words. But by having an internal discussion group called "skeptics" they seemed to welcome opinions unrelated to job functions which could provoke discussions as to what kinds of concepts stand up to scrutiny and what kind do not.
Not doing your job.
He did do his job. He received performance review which put him in the few percentages of the highest-performing employees in the company. And, as the existence of the "skeptics" group indicated, Google seemed to welcome extra-curricular activities.
The cause he was given is all the cause Google needs.
Unless the cause is demonstrably untrue and the company can be shown to have known that it's untrue. The fact that Google understands the difference between statistical-predisposition type arguments and single-cause-and-effect type arguments is directly related to their business. And they are the leader in their business. So they knew that the claim, that they made about the memo, did not hold water.
Otherwise, James Damore (pictured below) is going to need to find a job (and good luck finding one that doesn't mind him writing 10-page manifestos instead of doing his job).
He's already had very high profile job offers, but even short of those, a new "public intellectual" business model seem to be emerging which sustains a number of people who simply talk for a living without having an umbrella of a large distribution organization as their employer. "Famous for being famous" is also a business model which seems to sustain a number of people much better than a salaried-employee at even the most successful software company.
California is an "at will" employment state.
With the exception of protected classes. And it's been widely reported that California law considers political affiliation to be a protected class.
Wait, you think a corporate workplace is for you to "discuss the issues we want to discuss"?
Well, the author of the memo got that idea from the meetings he was dragged into to discuss the need for diversity. He was presented with statements and then he researched and produced a document showing that those statements didn't hold up. For doing such research and sharing it privately with people who call themselves "skeptics" at Google (presumably because they enjoy poking holes and correcting less-than-fully-rigorous conceptions), he was publicly exposed and summarily fired without cause (well, he was given a cause which was factually accurate, so without due cause).
This is truly a fire-able offense. Check the DO NOT REHIRE, box on this guy.
He'll never have to work again. They seem to have violated California law and since they don't record their diversity seminars while they record all other meetings, they may have violated federal whistleblower statutes.
Then there is the leaked news some googlers and google managers use black lists to block conservatives from joining some teams and promotions.
The more interesting news to come out of the memo is that Google records all of its meetings except its diversity seminars. They already know that what say in there may be suspect.
So Google might become a better company now. After they get a new CEO. The train on this:
Google will now hold several smaller forums "to gather and engage with Googlers, where people can feel comfortable to speak freely,"
has left the station as soon as they fired the last person who tried to do what they claim they need to do in low-key, respectful and detached academic manner. This has been a failure of leadership. Given their inability to expand the cloud business (their technology has gotten better, but its adaptation has not) and their failure to grow the Android platform, one has to wonder how will they fuck up next? Fail to produce accurate search results? How about this for a rubicon: fire the CEO for failure.
Oh, I don't think there is a question about whether he should sue. California has made political affiliation a protected class and justice only works if it's universally applied. Otherwise, it's the very definition of injustice. He said at multiple points that this was not a statement about any one particular woman. There is no question that the ignorance of the fact that he was making a statistical rather than causal argument is willful ignorance. Google threw him under the bus because they thought it was safer. They miscalculated. Which means their actions were worse than a crime. They were a mistake.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, there is 0 barrier to entry into recruiting profession. It's the sink-or-swim last resort of people with useless college degrees. Yeah, their job can be done by decent scripts 60% of the time. Of course, if you have half a brain, you can spot such a script almost immediately. And you know that the job very likely doesn't exist (90% of them are just data mining employee data).
It's invisible hand rather than magic hand. And it's invisible not because it's some secret super-conspiracy, but because it's comprised of all the people participating in the market. Oh, and it works when it's allowed to work. When people are allowed to express their wishes by spending money on what they want to spend it on. When there is a litany of laws which get in their way, you don't have a free market and you don't have people expressing their wishes. You get layers of middle men who don't know what you want, but try to convince others that they speak for you and express your wishes for you.
IBM managed to convince Cobol programmers that the world is divided into "mainframe" programmers and "PC". This is so inculcated into their brains that many of them still use those terms. I am not sure if a smart phone is an IBM or a PC, but IBM mainframe Cobol harkens back to the days when the entire os memory model allowed for no more than 640K of memory. But as long as you convince everyone who is willing to listen that not being one of "yours" is one of "others", you are golden. Just sprinkle some "open source" dust on it and it'll owrk. Oh, go ahead. Show me how to compile (open source) Docker with the network cable pulled out.
That would mean that what the lawyer claimed wasn't true. If their lawyer makes the argument that they were good at bargain hunting, it's valid to assume that he is not lying. Despite their reputation, lawyers cannot knowingly present false facts in a courtroom. So it wouldn't benefit him to state facts which are only disproven if this ever gets to trial. In fact, if the facts the lawyer claims to be true are, in fact, false, then he just gave an easy win to the prosecution. They just have to disprove his claims. And then the jury would never believe anything he says. And if the facts support the conclusion that they were good bargain hunters, then they had to have done it without lying at any point. Here's another possible scenario: buying a gift card gets you 2-3% discount on a purchase. And then you buy gift cards with gift cards until you are paying next to nothing on the next gift card that you buy. If the website didn't have protections against something like that, then I would consider this to be above water. This is no different from what traders do. If Lowe's made public offers which allowed the public to trade with Lowe's at a disadvantage to Lowe's, that's bad business, but it's not being a victim of a crime. Offering others to do something which results in your own financial losses is something that happens all the time. Sometimes it's even deliberate (think of selling of merchandise for pennies on a dollar to avoid the cost of restocking or garbage pickup). I can totally see a few scenario in which companies would sell gift cards at a huge loss (trying to expedite ending a contract with a 3rd party, for example).
GIGO
Yes, generally, AC in, garbage out. I agree with you on that.
What you think it sounds like and what actually happened aren't the same thing.
Well, the article doesn't say what actually happened. So I'll judge what it says based on what it says rather than based on what really happened. Because what I am judging is the validity of the stated conclusions from the stated premises.
It sounds like they discovered a way to combine a few offers to reduce the purchase price to zero or close to it. If Lowe's made those offers (intentionally or not) and the couple didn't change the pricing through hacking the system, this is indeed just high-tech bargain hunting. If they changed any of the site's content (even if it's client-side code), then it's manipulation which could be considered hacking. But if all they did was take advantage of the offers, Lowe's made them, then it's just criminalizing of getting a good deal.
Except Trump isn't a Jew
He is a loving and supportive father of a daughter who converted to Judaism. He is the 1st President to have more Jewish grandchildren than non-jewish ones. If you say that hete of Jews is not a necessary part of being a fascist, then you are belittling the tragedy of Holocaust to the point of being antisemitic.
you idiot
I am not.
How do you take someone between two such completely opposite worldviews?
You don't antagonize them, for starters. How do states market lotteries? Buying a lottery ticket is against one's self-interest. It's a tax on not knowing math. And yet people can be marketed to. How did they convince everyone that talking about presorting their own garbage is chic (aka "recycling")? Fear is not the only motivation. And it's a very poor motivation for people who have already been gilt-tripped on this particular subject (ie, the ones who have an extensive set of memories of dismissing these fears).
Calling Trump a fascist is straightforward unmitigated antisemitism. In fact, it's not even avert anti-semitism. Implying collusion between Trump and RF government (after all intelligence sources have stated that no such collusion existed) is overt antisemitism. Calling Trump a Russian-backed President is therefore an overt antisemitism. Even if you try to claim that you meant something other than collusion by saying "Russian-backed", you definitely reached for this ambiguity deliberately.
1st thing people learn in clinical psychology is that you cannot reach the patient if you don't accept their world view. You can only navigate in their world view because any attempts to challenge it will sound very similar to what they have already heard multiple times when they were challenged on their world view. And by reminding them of how they reacted to it last time, the memory is reinforced. Anyone creating a marketing campaign should have known this.
Do you understand that believing empathy is a handicap is known as sociopathy?
No, inability to experience empathy is a sociopath. Inability to suppress empathy makes it impossible to function in situations in which, as the phrase goes, "cooler intellect prevails."
You and James Damore were hurt somewhere along the line and now you believe women working in tech are to blame.
No, that's absurd. His memo was encouraging a change in personal training. It was not encouraging a purge. If you want to read any kind of frustration into his motifs, it seems to come from attending too many meetings in which man-bashing views were uttered with impunity. You may think that's no big deal, but for someone who thinks that being chastised on this account is uncalled for, it may come off as undeserved reprimand.
Anecdotally, since you seem to be on a high horse to slay some imaginary immoral dragon, my math PhD thesis advisor was a woman and all of my best math teachers were women. So, personally, I actually find the experience of all the people having difficulties with women in STEM to be quite at odds with my own experience. But I wouldn't dismiss the complaints of men who feel like they are repeatedly accused of sexism and other boarish behaviors which they themselves never even contemplated. Most people just nod along in these seminars and take these accusations as the cost of doing business. He took it to heart and try to disprove the accusation while trying to provide alternative strategies for achieving the stated goals. And he got steamrolled. I maintain that this is a problem with our legal regime more than anything else.
You understand the words "affiliation" and "orientation" are not the same, right?
You do understand that the words "green" and "cyan" are not the same thing?
In order for the firing to be based on perceived political affiliation, it's enough to show that he had a perceived political orientation. In other words, if he was fired for thinking like a Libertarian, it's not necessary to show that he was fired because he was thought of as being a card-carrying Libertarian.
But, in his case, it's slightly worse. Because the paper only advocates listening to Libertarian voices in order to create an environment more amicable for women.
If he believes that empathy is a handicap and he argues that women have a biological tendency to fall victim to this handicap and need tools to compensate for it and argues that forcing everyone to have a handicap is not a solution, then firing him for saying such a thing, instead of engaging his argument, is tantamount to suppressing a voice which attempts to argue for solutions for a perceived handicap. Since gender is a protected class, this could be a firing of an advocate of women's rights (because he is advocating, even if wrongly, for a solution to a gender-rooted problem). The fact that his solution involves advocacy for the engaging in conversation of Libertarian voices (as a method rather than as a goal) becomes a secondary form of discrimination here.
Libertarian
Was he fired for political affiliation?
It would appear that way. Because the reason given for his firing was not true and anyone who would read the memo he wrote would know that. Presumably the CEO read the memo if he felt the need to end his family vacation to deal with this... Certainly if he didn't read it, given that it was only 10 pages, it would not have been for any reason other than some hope for legal fiction of being able to claim plausible deniability.
So, what is his political affiliation? Do you know? And was he fired for political affiliation?
That's not how it works. Political affiliation is not established solely through party membership. Espousing a point of view which is prominently a part of a certain political movement's platform is enough to create a perception of political affiliation. And firing someone for perceived political affiliation, while pretending not to understand that what he wrote was fact-based, is bona fide discrimination based on political orientation (even if he doesn't have one but only came off as having one).
What "political affiliation" do you believe James Damore to hold?
Regardless of his personal beliefs, he argued for inclusion of equality-of-opportunity-over-equality-of-outcomes opinions to be part of the conversation. It doesn't matter that everyone tries to brand him as an exclusionist. His words don't. And he got fired because Google was too scared to take an intellectually honest stand. Well, as legally-protected (in California) and policy-allowed (through allowing of extra-curricular activities) speech, he was entitled to saying what he said. And he distributed it privately. He didn't force this paper on anyone. He shared it with a few people. He didn't leak it to the press (as far as we know). So he didn't embarrass the company or cause its legal troubles. Think about it for a few seconds before you foam at the mouth. He wrote a paper. That's all. It was a well-research, albeit unpopular, opinion. It didn't interfere with his doing his job. Even if Google didn't solicit extra curricular opinions, it would still be awful to fire him for writing a paper that people didn't like. The fact no one seems to be able to make an argument against him without making up some lie is also very telling. If what he did was that awful, then there should be easy arguments against it which do not involve lies.
Grow the android platform? How much bigger do you want it to become?
Big enough to be useful. They can run every microwave and every toaster, too. But that won't make it a platform. It will make it a firmware. A successful platform creates an ecosystem and opportunity for others to contribute. Android has been losing ground as a platform and gaining ground as a firmware. My Google Maps app on Android phone was actually freezing the phone to the point where it could only be restarted by pulling out the battery. And it was doing it consistently until I downgraded the app to the version from 4 years ago. A bunch of native Android apps don't work anymore. Certificates don't upgrade even though there is a certificate management background service running. I don't see any reason for any developer to learn Android development. Oh, and I also forgot to mention that Chromebook is dead as a platform. It's waaay past its peak.
Now it's time to move on to the Cloud and AI related things.
They have lost AI to Microsoft. Permanently. They have lost 2nd place in the cloud to Microsoft. By choice. They concentrated on making it OSS and hoped that it would improve adoption. Microsoft concentrated on making their cloud offerings learner-friendly and shot past Google in terms of adoption even though they came to the market much later.
What "political affiliation" do you believe James Damore to hold?
Arguing for equality of opportunity over equality of outcomes is a very clear political stand in today's political climate.
Do you write a 10-page memo to your company for every meeting they had that you think was a waste of time?
I don't. But Google does. Unless these are meetings regarding diversity.
Did the company ask him to do that?
Not in those words. But by having an internal discussion group called "skeptics" they seemed to welcome opinions unrelated to job functions which could provoke discussions as to what kinds of concepts stand up to scrutiny and what kind do not.
Not doing your job.
He did do his job. He received performance review which put him in the few percentages of the highest-performing employees in the company. And, as the existence of the "skeptics" group indicated, Google seemed to welcome extra-curricular activities.
The cause he was given is all the cause Google needs.
Unless the cause is demonstrably untrue and the company can be shown to have known that it's untrue. The fact that Google understands the difference between statistical-predisposition type arguments and single-cause-and-effect type arguments is directly related to their business. And they are the leader in their business. So they knew that the claim, that they made about the memo, did not hold water.
Otherwise, James Damore (pictured below) is going to need to find a job (and good luck finding one that doesn't mind him writing 10-page manifestos instead of doing his job).
He's already had very high profile job offers, but even short of those, a new "public intellectual" business model seem to be emerging which sustains a number of people who simply talk for a living without having an umbrella of a large distribution organization as their employer. "Famous for being famous" is also a business model which seems to sustain a number of people much better than a salaried-employee at even the most successful software company.
California is an "at will" employment state.
With the exception of protected classes. And it's been widely reported that California law considers political affiliation to be a protected class.
Wait, you think a corporate workplace is for you to "discuss the issues we want to discuss"?
Well, the author of the memo got that idea from the meetings he was dragged into to discuss the need for diversity. He was presented with statements and then he researched and produced a document showing that those statements didn't hold up. For doing such research and sharing it privately with people who call themselves "skeptics" at Google (presumably because they enjoy poking holes and correcting less-than-fully-rigorous conceptions), he was publicly exposed and summarily fired without cause (well, he was given a cause which was factually accurate, so without due cause).
The firings will continue until morale improves.
This is truly a fire-able offense. Check the DO NOT REHIRE, box on this guy.
He'll never have to work again. They seem to have violated California law and since they don't record their diversity seminars while they record all other meetings, they may have violated federal whistleblower statutes.
Then there is the leaked news some googlers and google managers use black lists to block conservatives from joining some teams and promotions.
The more interesting news to come out of the memo is that Google records all of its meetings except its diversity seminars. They already know that what say in there may be suspect.
Google will now hold several smaller forums "to gather and engage with Googlers, where people can feel comfortable to speak freely,"
has left the station as soon as they fired the last person who tried to do what they claim they need to do in low-key, respectful and detached academic manner. This has been a failure of leadership. Given their inability to expand the cloud business (their technology has gotten better, but its adaptation has not) and their failure to grow the Android platform, one has to wonder how will they fuck up next? Fail to produce accurate search results? How about this for a rubicon: fire the CEO for failure.
Oh, I don't think there is a question about whether he should sue. California has made political affiliation a protected class and justice only works if it's universally applied. Otherwise, it's the very definition of injustice. He said at multiple points that this was not a statement about any one particular woman. There is no question that the ignorance of the fact that he was making a statistical rather than causal argument is willful ignorance. Google threw him under the bus because they thought it was safer. They miscalculated. Which means their actions were worse than a crime. They were a mistake.