4 ms·
as an engineer, no we didn't. maybe like 1 pct that are SJW's did but not the silent majority. we're tired of them speaking for us.
by alkibiades 8y ago
as an engineer, no we didn't. maybe like 1 pct that are SJW's did but not the silent majority. we're tired of them speaking for us.
- geofft 8y agoWell, why didn't they get rid of the SJWs during the Damore kerfuffle instead of firing Damore? Some scenarios: - Google leadership is, themselves, SJWs. They're just SJWs who are bad at things but once something problematic is brought to their attention they take actions of their own volition. - Google leadership is a bunch of pushovers who listen to the most vocal faction even if it's a tiny minority and chase PR over getting things done. This means Google absolutely should not have AIs taking actions in an ethical framework decided upon by Google leadership, and certainly shouldn't have an outside council to legitimize their actions, because it isn't always the SJWs who will be loudest. (And in particular, there was a legitimate risk of the Heritage Foundation injecting its worldview into Google through James, because there's also a loud strain in American conservatism.) Google should be broken up and someone else should try. - Actually, the SJWs are disproportionately responsible for Google's engineering success, despite being a minority, and if you're tired of them speaking for you, you need to prove that Google can survive without them. (Or they're not a minority, and there's a silent majority of people who stay quiet but are actually aligned with the SJWs, or something else equivalent.)