4 ms·

Its actually really impressive that Uber is standing behind him at all. Nobodies get fired from their job from any old baseless accusation.

Lazare 10y ago
Uber has shown little adherence to principle but a great fondness for game theory. Game theory does not yield a lot of positive reasons why Uber would be backing Lewandowsky. > from any old baseless accusation The accusations may be false, but they are not baseless. They're so strong, in fact, that Uber is probably going to be hit with a preliminary injunction. Baseless accusations, by definition, would not have brought Uber to this stage.
- elastic_church 10y ago
  Oh I see why my comment perturbed the collective conscious, but I wasn't making any statement on the merit of the accusation, just his continual employment and how impressive that is. I was saying that most people get fired for any accusation whether they have merit or not. This employee has an accusation that has substantial merit and is still employed. So thats actually broadcasting confidence amongst current and future employees regardless of what kind of thing gets slung their way.
  - Lazare 10y ago
    Your suggestion could be true, yes. In theory. But the obvious explanation (and the one Occam's Razor points us to) is quite different: That Uber would fire Lewandowsky if they thought they could benefit, but they believe standing behind him will minimize their legal liability and/or maximise their chances of benefitting from the purchase of Otto. A normal guy accused of something baseless doesn't have any pull on Uber and their top exec's; Lewandowsky might. In other words, your conclusion is that "if they're standing behind this guy when everything is pushing them to fire him, they'd NEVER fire a normal guy!" A better conclusion is probably "if they're standing behind this guy when everything is pushing them to fire him, there must be something really strong forcing them not to. A normal guy would still be screwed, because they don't have...whatever Lewandowsky has." I mean, obviously we don't know what Uber's top execs are thinking, or what really happened with Lewandowsky and Otto. But we know a bit about how Uber think in general, and we've seen some past decisions they've made. Do you really argue selfless altruism and employee loyalty is the most likely explanation here?

Lazare 10y ago

Uber has shown little adherence to principle but a great fondness for game theory. Game theory does not yield a lot of positive reasons why Uber would be backing Lewandowsky. > from any old baseless accusation The accusations may be false, but they are not baseless. They're so strong, in fact, that Uber is probably going to be hit with a preliminary injunction. Baseless accusations, by definition, would not have brought Uber to this stage.

elastic_church 10y ago
Oh I see why my comment perturbed the collective conscious, but I wasn't making any statement on the merit of the accusation, just his continual employment and how impressive that is. I was saying that most people get fired for any accusation whether they have merit or not. This employee has an accusation that has substantial merit and is still employed. So thats actually broadcasting confidence amongst current and future employees regardless of what kind of thing gets slung their way.
- Lazare 10y ago
  Your suggestion could be true, yes. In theory. But the obvious explanation (and the one Occam's Razor points us to) is quite different: That Uber would fire Lewandowsky if they thought they could benefit, but they believe standing behind him will minimize their legal liability and/or maximise their chances of benefitting from the purchase of Otto. A normal guy accused of something baseless doesn't have any pull on Uber and their top exec's; Lewandowsky might. In other words, your conclusion is that "if they're standing behind this guy when everything is pushing them to fire him, they'd NEVER fire a normal guy!" A better conclusion is probably "if they're standing behind this guy when everything is pushing them to fire him, there must be something really strong forcing them not to. A normal guy would still be screwed, because they don't have...whatever Lewandowsky has." I mean, obviously we don't know what Uber's top execs are thinking, or what really happened with Lewandowsky and Otto. But we know a bit about how Uber think in general, and we've seen some past decisions they've made. Do you really argue selfless altruism and employee loyalty is the most likely explanation here?