5 ms·

Might want to put a big fat disclaimer (in comments on this article) that you're an Uber engineer, so you obviously are biased here.

by SEJeff 9y ago

azylman 9y ago
I've been very open about that (it's in my HN profile) and I didn't think it was relevant here since I was quoting the judge and not offering up my own opinions. Apologies if you disagree. :)
- dave5104 9y ago
  No, but it will likely affect what you have to say about the case at hand.
  - azylman 9y ago
    Sure, if I started writing my opinion on the case of course I would include it
    - dpark 9y ago
      Uh, "Not looking good for Waymo..." is absolutely your opinion.
      - Fricken 9y ago
        It's my opinion too, and I think Uber are a bunch of baddy bad-bads. Since this case began I've been waiting for Waymo to drop the bomb, and no bomb has materialized. Levandowski is in trouble, but what is it again that Waymo has to levy against Uber? I'm not seeing much. But seriously, judge a person's comments on the merits of their argument, not who they work for.
        dpark 9y ago
        > But seriously, judge a person's comments on the merits of their argument, not who they work for. Undisclosed conflicts of interest are a huge red flag. Selectively posting critical comments about your competitors is pretty shady. Doing it without disclosure of the bias is very shady.
        Fricken 9y ago
        Whoa, there. This is just a casual HN comment thread, I don't think we need to be getting that uptight. Maybe the subject has primed you all to make believe as super serious lawyers, but we all know opinions expressed here really don't count for much. It certainly won't have any influence on the outcome of the case. It's not like his bias was that hard to figure out, all you had to do was open his user profile. If there are genuine Uber astroturfers creeping around they wouldn't be that easy to unmask.
        dpark 9y ago
        I don't agree. It's shady regardless. It doesn't have to be "genuine" astroturfing, whatever that is. If I were posting snarky comments about my competitors and not disclosing my conflict of interest in the comment, I'd fully expect people to call me out on my behavior. My employer (Microsoft) has a serious policy about disclosing employment if making comments about our products or our competitors' products online, because it otherwise reflects very poorly both on the individual and the company. Of course, Uber's track record of ethical conduct is pretty spotty. It's not surprising that some of their employees wouldn't see the issue with posting negative comments without disclosure about not just competitors but competitors waging active legal battles against Uber.
        Fricken 9y ago
        You just went on the attack against an Uber employee without disclosing that you work for Microsoft in your previous comment. You literally just committed the sin you're accusing someone else of. Worse, Uber doesn't have that policy. Microsoft does. Uber doesn't have to obey Microsoft's arbitrary made up rules. You're just looking for an excuse to hurt somebody, while ironically, and with total lack of self awareness accusing them of being ethically challenged. And maybe you've forgotten what Microsoft did to get where it is today. Because in the 90s it was just as ethically challenged as Uber is now.
    - Geekette 9y ago
      But you have been stating your opinions here, without including the disclaimer that you're an Uber employee. The standard procedure is to put your disclaimer within your comment as people typically don't automatically lookup a commenter's profile when reading his/her comments.
      - komon 9y ago
        What does it matter? There's no claim of journalistic integrity or lack of bias in internet comments. Would we like to know when bias exists? Sure. Do we need to castigate those who neglect to comment on their own bias? I don't think it's necessary.
      - DannyBee 9y ago
        "The standard procedure is to put your disclaimer within your comment as people typically don't automatically lookup a commenter's profile when reading his/her comments" No, it isn't. (it is if you are a journalist with a conflict of interest, which he isn't). The second it is, i'm out. Because there's no reason you should care. It's just another excuse for people to be able to dismiss what others say without having to think critically about it. If you want to engage on the merits, do it. Everyone and everything is biased. Both consciously and not. If you want to say "hey, i read the article and i think your take is wrong", awesome, do that. His take isn't any righter or wronger because he's an uber engineer, and the whole point of a discussion forum like this is, in fact, to have critical thinking. Otherwise it's just another worthless echo chamber. (I'm going to completely and totally ignore the "people also aren't their jobs" part of this). So instead of caring about his day job, IMHO, you should do the critical thinking and engage in the discussion for real.
        Geekette 9y ago
        It's not about condemning bias, qualifying the rightness/wrongness of comment or "caring about his day job" but about arguments in good faith. Not declaring affiliations or potential conflicts of interests makes people ascribe negative intentions or deceptive motives to you (even when not necessarily the case) if they discover it after the fact. It doesn't have to be in more formal settings such as in publications by journalists - I also see disclaimers stated by others in HN comments often.
    - KGIII 9y ago
      A simple rule that I follow: I disclose all affiliations when there is a reasonable chance that others might consider it deceptive if I didn't disclose my biases and they were later discovered. In longer format: Sometimes, it isn't even an affiliation with a specific company and I'll simply type something like, 'I admit my bias(es).' For the former an example might be, 'I was an early investor in Tesla and continue to own shares. This may bias my opinions.' Basically, if in doubt, disclose affiliations and biases due to those affiliations. Sometimes affiliations mean the bias is a negative reaction, it's not always a positive response. 'I have previously worked with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation and my opinion may be biased based on those experiences.' If someone could later learn you were affiliated and say, 'Well, that explains their post!' it's probably better to have disclosed the affiliations in the first place. This post is just meant to share how I do it and why I do it. You can, of course, disclose what you want. I think it is customary to make such disclosures on HN. It is in your profile, but I'm not sure many people check profiles.
- jamesmishra 9y ago
  (Former Uber engineer here.) Come on, man. Don't be that way. I always list my affiliation when commenting on relevant articles. Listing potential conflicts of interest is a community norm--and besides, I'm proud of my affiliation!
mcguire 9y ago
He's got a point. Waymo looks like it's trying to shoot itself in the foot. My interpretation of the judge's comments is that Uber is in a lot of trouble, if Waymo has a case at all. Which it looks like it doesn't. I am not a lawyer. I am unaffiliated with the case in any way. Your mileage may vary. Not available in all states.
- jhall1468 9y ago
  > Which it looks like it doesn't. That's a hell of a claim.
  - mcguire 9y ago
    According to the article, they've dropped the 4 patent infringement claims. Further, from the coverage recently, it looks like they are having trouble showing that their IP was used inside Uber. They have a slam-dunk case against Levandowski, but he's not a defendant.
    - sangnoir 9y ago
      > According to the article, they've dropped the 4 patent infringement claims. Judge Alsup explicitly requested that Waymo narrow the scope of the case[1], so Waymo had to pare down to what they felt were the strongest claims: > Over the course of the last several months, the judge has urged both parties to simplify the scope of the case so that each could be adequately prepared to argue the merits of the strongest claims post-discovery 1. https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/07/waymo-drops-patent-claims/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/07/waymo-drops-patent-claims/
  - Kiro 9y ago
    Waymo is 100% going to lose this. Mark my words.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

Might want to put a big fat disclaimer (in comments on this article) that you're an Uber engineer, so you obviously are biased here.

by SEJeff 9y ago

Might want to put a big fat disclaimer (in comments on this article) that you're an Uber engineer, so you obviously are biased here.

azylman 9y ago

I've been very open about that (it's in my HN profile) and I didn't think it was relevant here since I was quoting the judge and not offering up my own opinions. Apologies if you disagree. :)

dave5104 9y ago
No, but it will likely affect what you have to say about the case at hand.
- azylman 9y ago
  Sure, if I started writing my opinion on the case of course I would include it
  - dpark 9y ago
    Uh, "Not looking good for Waymo..." is absolutely your opinion.
    - Fricken 9y ago
      It's my opinion too, and I think Uber are a bunch of baddy bad-bads. Since this case began I've been waiting for Waymo to drop the bomb, and no bomb has materialized. Levandowski is in trouble, but what is it again that Waymo has to levy against Uber? I'm not seeing much. But seriously, judge a person's comments on the merits of their argument, not who they work for.
      - dpark 9y ago
        > But seriously, judge a person's comments on the merits of their argument, not who they work for. Undisclosed conflicts of interest are a huge red flag. Selectively posting critical comments about your competitors is pretty shady. Doing it without disclosure of the bias is very shady.
        Fricken 9y ago
        Whoa, there. This is just a casual HN comment thread, I don't think we need to be getting that uptight. Maybe the subject has primed you all to make believe as super serious lawyers, but we all know opinions expressed here really don't count for much. It certainly won't have any influence on the outcome of the case. It's not like his bias was that hard to figure out, all you had to do was open his user profile. If there are genuine Uber astroturfers creeping around they wouldn't be that easy to unmask.
        dpark 9y ago
        I don't agree. It's shady regardless. It doesn't have to be "genuine" astroturfing, whatever that is. If I were posting snarky comments about my competitors and not disclosing my conflict of interest in the comment, I'd fully expect people to call me out on my behavior. My employer (Microsoft) has a serious policy about disclosing employment if making comments about our products or our competitors' products online, because it otherwise reflects very poorly both on the individual and the company. Of course, Uber's track record of ethical conduct is pretty spotty. It's not surprising that some of their employees wouldn't see the issue with posting negative comments without disclosure about not just competitors but competitors waging active legal battles against Uber.
        Fricken 9y ago
        You just went on the attack against an Uber employee without disclosing that you work for Microsoft in your previous comment. You literally just committed the sin you're accusing someone else of. Worse, Uber doesn't have that policy. Microsoft does. Uber doesn't have to obey Microsoft's arbitrary made up rules. You're just looking for an excuse to hurt somebody, while ironically, and with total lack of self awareness accusing them of being ethically challenged. And maybe you've forgotten what Microsoft did to get where it is today. Because in the 90s it was just as ethically challenged as Uber is now.
  - Geekette 9y ago
    But you have been stating your opinions here, without including the disclaimer that you're an Uber employee. The standard procedure is to put your disclaimer within your comment as people typically don't automatically lookup a commenter's profile when reading his/her comments.
    - komon 9y ago
      What does it matter? There's no claim of journalistic integrity or lack of bias in internet comments. Would we like to know when bias exists? Sure. Do we need to castigate those who neglect to comment on their own bias? I don't think it's necessary.
    - DannyBee 9y ago
      "The standard procedure is to put your disclaimer within your comment as people typically don't automatically lookup a commenter's profile when reading his/her comments" No, it isn't. (it is if you are a journalist with a conflict of interest, which he isn't). The second it is, i'm out. Because there's no reason you should care. It's just another excuse for people to be able to dismiss what others say without having to think critically about it. If you want to engage on the merits, do it. Everyone and everything is biased. Both consciously and not. If you want to say "hey, i read the article and i think your take is wrong", awesome, do that. His take isn't any righter or wronger because he's an uber engineer, and the whole point of a discussion forum like this is, in fact, to have critical thinking. Otherwise it's just another worthless echo chamber. (I'm going to completely and totally ignore the "people also aren't their jobs" part of this). So instead of caring about his day job, IMHO, you should do the critical thinking and engage in the discussion for real.
      - Geekette 9y ago
        It's not about condemning bias, qualifying the rightness/wrongness of comment or "caring about his day job" but about arguments in good faith. Not declaring affiliations or potential conflicts of interests makes people ascribe negative intentions or deceptive motives to you (even when not necessarily the case) if they discover it after the fact. It doesn't have to be in more formal settings such as in publications by journalists - I also see disclaimers stated by others in HN comments often.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    A simple rule that I follow: I disclose all affiliations when there is a reasonable chance that others might consider it deceptive if I didn't disclose my biases and they were later discovered. In longer format: Sometimes, it isn't even an affiliation with a specific company and I'll simply type something like, 'I admit my bias(es).' For the former an example might be, 'I was an early investor in Tesla and continue to own shares. This may bias my opinions.' Basically, if in doubt, disclose affiliations and biases due to those affiliations. Sometimes affiliations mean the bias is a negative reaction, it's not always a positive response. 'I have previously worked with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation and my opinion may be biased based on those experiences.' If someone could later learn you were affiliated and say, 'Well, that explains their post!' it's probably better to have disclosed the affiliations in the first place. This post is just meant to share how I do it and why I do it. You can, of course, disclose what you want. I think it is customary to make such disclosures on HN. It is in your profile, but I'm not sure many people check profiles.
jamesmishra 9y ago
(Former Uber engineer here.) Come on, man. Don't be that way. I always list my affiliation when commenting on relevant articles. Listing potential conflicts of interest is a community norm--and besides, I'm proud of my affiliation!

mcguire 9y ago

He's got a point. Waymo looks like it's trying to shoot itself in the foot. My interpretation of the judge's comments is that Uber is in a lot of trouble, if Waymo has a case at all. Which it looks like it doesn't. I am not a lawyer. I am unaffiliated with the case in any way. Your mileage may vary. Not available in all states.

jhall1468 9y ago
> Which it looks like it doesn't. That's a hell of a claim.
- mcguire 9y ago
  According to the article, they've dropped the 4 patent infringement claims. Further, from the coverage recently, it looks like they are having trouble showing that their IP was used inside Uber. They have a slam-dunk case against Levandowski, but he's not a defendant.
  - sangnoir 9y ago
    > According to the article, they've dropped the 4 patent infringement claims. Judge Alsup explicitly requested that Waymo narrow the scope of the case[1], so Waymo had to pare down to what they felt were the strongest claims: > Over the course of the last several months, the judge has urged both parties to simplify the scope of the case so that each could be adequately prepared to argue the merits of the strongest claims post-discovery 1. https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/07/waymo-drops-patent-claims/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/07/waymo-drops-patent-claims/
- Kiro 9y ago
  Waymo is 100% going to lose this. Mark my words.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]