4 ms·

Right now all you know is that blog post. There's no denying that there may be another side, which can only be known after they investigate. That's the basic

by khazhou 10y ago

Right now all you know is that blog post. There's no denying that there may be another side, which can only be known after they investigate. That's the basic principle of our legal system... why wouldn't it apply here, despite this still being handled privately within the company?

muglug 10y ago
> Right now all you know is that blog post It wasn't posted anonymously. It's a blog post from a well-regarded female engineer with a lot to lose (her career, and possible financial penalties) if her claims turn out to be made up. The basic atmosphere she describes has been corroborated by other former Uber engineers. And a number of prominent female engineers at other companies have reported near-identical experiences in their own careers. If I was a betting man, I'd put a lot of money on her claims being born out by any even-handed investigation (though, as other people here have commented, Uber's investigation is unlikely to be particularly neutral). Additionally, nobody on HN is under any obligation to assume that anyone is innocent until proven guilty — that's up to the (criminal) courts.
- khazhou 10y ago
  Of course, you can make any assumption and come to any conclusion you'd like. But you still don't know.
  - muglug 10y ago
    No, and I never claimed I did. But I suppose I do question the motivations of those who care deeply about presenting the "other side" when there are allegations of sexist practices in the workplace. In this particular scenario, the other side is a company with incredibly deep pockets and priority access to world leaders. They've dealt with far worse (e.g. threatening to stalk journalists), and they'll be fine. In fact, an exec who threatened to "expose" a personal detail about a journalist who had written negatively about Uber is still employed there. Fancy that.
    - khazhou 10y ago
      To be clear, you're questioning my motivations (perhaps implying I condone sexual harassment)? Or you're questioning the original commenter?
      - muglug 10y ago
        Talking about the original commenter's "other side".
  - stale2002 10y ago
    How much would you bet? If you were forced to take one side of a bet, with varying odds, what percentage likelyhood do you think that everything is true? 60? 80? 90? 99%? You don't have any proof that the moon isn't made of cheese, but do you go around saying "Uhh, have you ever been to the moon? You still don't know".
stale2002 10y ago
"There's no denying that there may be another side" But.. There probably isn't right? Like, 95% chance there is no other side. With everything that you know about Uber, would any of things mentioned surprise you?
wpietri 10y ago
Is Hacker News somehow now part of the legal system? Assuming not, then invoking its protections here is ridiculous. We have a robust legal system because it has great power, power we must use fairly as we create a stable society. But people are welcome to form opinions on whatever basis they please. And that can include things like Uber's history of terrible behavior and the history of sexist incidents at other tech companies.

by khazhou 10y ago

muglug 10y ago

> Right now all you know is that blog post It wasn't posted anonymously. It's a blog post from a well-regarded female engineer with a lot to lose (her career, and possible financial penalties) if her claims turn out to be made up. The basic atmosphere she describes has been corroborated by other former Uber engineers. And a number of prominent female engineers at other companies have reported near-identical experiences in their own careers. If I was a betting man, I'd put a lot of money on her claims being born out by any even-handed investigation (though, as other people here have commented, Uber's investigation is unlikely to be particularly neutral). Additionally, nobody on HN is under any obligation to assume that anyone is innocent until proven guilty — that's up to the (criminal) courts.

khazhou 10y ago
Of course, you can make any assumption and come to any conclusion you'd like. But you still don't know.
- muglug 10y ago
  No, and I never claimed I did. But I suppose I do question the motivations of those who care deeply about presenting the "other side" when there are allegations of sexist practices in the workplace. In this particular scenario, the other side is a company with incredibly deep pockets and priority access to world leaders. They've dealt with far worse (e.g. threatening to stalk journalists), and they'll be fine. In fact, an exec who threatened to "expose" a personal detail about a journalist who had written negatively about Uber is still employed there. Fancy that.
  - khazhou 10y ago
    To be clear, you're questioning my motivations (perhaps implying I condone sexual harassment)? Or you're questioning the original commenter?
    - muglug 10y ago
      Talking about the original commenter's "other side".
- stale2002 10y ago
  How much would you bet? If you were forced to take one side of a bet, with varying odds, what percentage likelyhood do you think that everything is true? 60? 80? 90? 99%? You don't have any proof that the moon isn't made of cheese, but do you go around saying "Uhh, have you ever been to the moon? You still don't know".

stale2002 10y ago

"There's no denying that there may be another side" But.. There probably isn't right? Like, 95% chance there is no other side. With everything that you know about Uber, would any of things mentioned surprise you?

wpietri 10y ago

Is Hacker News somehow now part of the legal system? Assuming not, then invoking its protections here is ridiculous. We have a robust legal system because it has great power, power we must use fairly as we create a stable society. But people are welcome to form opinions on whatever basis they please. And that can include things like Uber's history of terrible behavior and the history of sexist incidents at other tech companies.