4 ms·

Are the most trivial of topics publishable if they say something negative about a big tech company? I think NYT would not have gone with this if say, John Deere

Are the most trivial of topics publishable if they say something negative about a big tech company? I think NYT would not have gone with this if say, John Deere employees were feeding cats outside their headquarters.

msabalau 8y ago
People who work at John Deere don't make journalists feel that they've badly failed at career planning.
- paulcole 8y ago
  I’ve often heard how Silicon Valley tech bros aren’t capable of empathy. But here you are, perceptively realizing how everyone who doesn’t work at Google is constantly aware of and jealous of those who do.
  - notacoward 8y ago
    It's not a lack of empathy. It's a recognition of the fact that a lot of journalists see Facebook, Google, etc. as rivals negatively affecting their own livelihoods, and that it's human nature to by hyper-aware of a rival's failings. They seize on tech-industry missteps the same way a Democrat would seize on a Republican's or vice versa.
wpietri 8y ago
Gosh, it's almost like Google is a company 10x the size of John Deere, one used by billions of people (and the great bulk of the NYT's readers). And you might note that this is in the section specifically devoted to covering the technology industry. Do you also object to the Times having that and not an agriculture section?
- arthurofbabylon 8y ago
  Why would it be in the tech category? Nature, ecology, sure. Tech? Only if indeed it’s more about sensationalizing a buzzy tech company would a story about cats and owls be in a tech category.
  - wpietri 8y ago
    Because reporters are assigned to beats. If you had bothered to click on the author's name, you'd learn that he's been writing about tech for the NYT for 11 years. I'd guess that he heard about this through one of his many Silicon Valley sources. I'd further guess that he pitched the story to his editor, who then ran it their section, which it is their job to fill. Rather than the Nature or Ecology sections, neither of which appears to be an actual NY Times section: http://spiderbites.nytimes.com/sections/00000.html http://spiderbites.nytimes.com/sections/00000.html
- fanzhang 8y ago
  John Deere has about 66K employees and Google has about 85K. Also, the former literally makes money by altering the environment whereas the latter is generally web-based. I think this is the exact point the OP is talking about: Google seems big because it's bigger by profits. Also, not unrelated, some people here and elsewhere feel more emotional about Google. So take some otherwise small-town public-interest story and push it for views.
  - hueving 8y ago
    >Also, the former literally makes money by altering the environment whereas the latter is generally web-based. Do you think the web is some magical place outside of the environment? Google has more servers running than any other company in the world consuming significant amounts of energy.
    - fanzhang 8y ago
      Out of all the organizations that do bad for public policy, you're going after Google. And out of all the things you can get Google for, you're going after the latent heat of their servers?
      - wpietri 8y ago
        Nobody is "going after" Google here. It was an interesting article about unintended consequences. That it involved Google made it a bit more interesting, as people are understandably curious about a company that touches most Americans daily -- for many, dozens of times a day.
      - hueving 8y ago
        Latent heat isn't the issue. It's the environmental impact of the electricity production and manufacturing processes for all of their servers.
  - wpietri 8y ago
    The 10x is by market cap, which is a better measure of its economic importance.
vm 8y ago
the only part more confusing is that this was upvoted to the front page of HN
WillReplyfFood 8y ago
Are you seriously calling the extuinguishing of a species - all because some socially deprived devs need a little furry killer maschine to cuddle - trivial? Just do with strays as they do in every other country- trap them and put them down. The need for a biological diverse environment outweights the needs of some humans for easy consumable and controllable "social" experiences. For the googlers, get a real human to interact with - yeah, its more challenging, but that is what a social life is all about.

msabalau 8y ago

People who work at John Deere don't make journalists feel that they've badly failed at career planning.

paulcole 8y ago
I’ve often heard how Silicon Valley tech bros aren’t capable of empathy. But here you are, perceptively realizing how everyone who doesn’t work at Google is constantly aware of and jealous of those who do.
- notacoward 8y ago
  It's not a lack of empathy. It's a recognition of the fact that a lot of journalists see Facebook, Google, etc. as rivals negatively affecting their own livelihoods, and that it's human nature to by hyper-aware of a rival's failings. They seize on tech-industry missteps the same way a Democrat would seize on a Republican's or vice versa.

wpietri 8y ago

Gosh, it's almost like Google is a company 10x the size of John Deere, one used by billions of people (and the great bulk of the NYT's readers). And you might note that this is in the section specifically devoted to covering the technology industry. Do you also object to the Times having that and not an agriculture section?

arthurofbabylon 8y ago
Why would it be in the tech category? Nature, ecology, sure. Tech? Only if indeed it’s more about sensationalizing a buzzy tech company would a story about cats and owls be in a tech category.
- wpietri 8y ago
  Because reporters are assigned to beats. If you had bothered to click on the author's name, you'd learn that he's been writing about tech for the NYT for 11 years. I'd guess that he heard about this through one of his many Silicon Valley sources. I'd further guess that he pitched the story to his editor, who then ran it their section, which it is their job to fill. Rather than the Nature or Ecology sections, neither of which appears to be an actual NY Times section: http://spiderbites.nytimes.com/sections/00000.html http://spiderbites.nytimes.com/sections/00000.html
fanzhang 8y ago
John Deere has about 66K employees and Google has about 85K. Also, the former literally makes money by altering the environment whereas the latter is generally web-based. I think this is the exact point the OP is talking about: Google seems big because it's bigger by profits. Also, not unrelated, some people here and elsewhere feel more emotional about Google. So take some otherwise small-town public-interest story and push it for views.
- hueving 8y ago
  >Also, the former literally makes money by altering the environment whereas the latter is generally web-based. Do you think the web is some magical place outside of the environment? Google has more servers running than any other company in the world consuming significant amounts of energy.
  - fanzhang 8y ago
    Out of all the organizations that do bad for public policy, you're going after Google. And out of all the things you can get Google for, you're going after the latent heat of their servers?
    - wpietri 8y ago
      Nobody is "going after" Google here. It was an interesting article about unintended consequences. That it involved Google made it a bit more interesting, as people are understandably curious about a company that touches most Americans daily -- for many, dozens of times a day.
    - hueving 8y ago
      Latent heat isn't the issue. It's the environmental impact of the electricity production and manufacturing processes for all of their servers.
- wpietri 8y ago
  The 10x is by market cap, which is a better measure of its economic importance.

vm 8y ago

the only part more confusing is that this was upvoted to the front page of HN

WillReplyfFood 8y ago

Are you seriously calling the extuinguishing of a species - all because some socially deprived devs need a little furry killer maschine to cuddle - trivial? Just do with strays as they do in every other country- trap them and put them down. The need for a biological diverse environment outweights the needs of some humans for easy consumable and controllable "social" experiences. For the googlers, get a real human to interact with - yeah, its more challenging, but that is what a social life is all about.