3 ms·

It's the ultimatum part that makes the difference.

by Tycho 6y ago

mcphage 6y ago
So was it a bluff or was it a resignation?
- Tycho 6y ago
  The original post was updated with more information. Timnit responded with an email requiring that a number of conditions be met in order for her to continue working at Google, including revealing the identities of every person who Megan and I had spoken to and consulted as part of the review of the paper and the exact feedback. Timnit wrote that if we didn’t meet these demands, she would leave Google and work on an end date. We accept and respect her decision to resign from Google. I would say that describes a conditional resignation, and the fact that she called this “being fired” indicates she didn’t really plan to resign (ie. she was bluffing).
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    She called it being fired because Google terminated her employment earlier than she offered to resign.
    - Tycho 6y ago
      It’s a strange reaction though. “I’m resigning.” “OK, that’s your prerogative, bye.” “Wait! I didn’t mean NOW! How can you fire me like this?!” Then make a big deal about being fired on social media. Seems to me that someone who genuinely was ready to resign would have just quietly walked away, even if they imagined it ending less abruptly. Can’t know for sure, obviously.
      - pseudalopex 6y ago
        Resigning doesn't mean leaving quietly. Especially for a researcher ordered to retract a paper.
uoaei 6y ago
Y'all are alleging that it was phrased as an ultimatum. I'm not so sure that's the case. Proposing an option of resigning is not the same thing as "I will definitely resign".
- Andraia 6y ago
  > I'm not so sure that's the case. The person who benefits from your doubt, _and_ could resolve your doubt, chooses not to.
  - uoaei 6y ago
    "Chooses not to" is so disingenuous it's hard to take you seriously. She cannot and will not expose that information without inviting all sorts of litigation. This is not a case where she can just "choose" to release that information.
  - throwaway2245 6y ago
    If she were making a legal case, then I gather it could harm her case to release this information to the public. So, she might be choosing not to for this reason.

It's the ultimatum part that makes the difference.

by Tycho 6y ago

It's the ultimatum part that makes the difference.

mcphage 6y ago

So was it a bluff or was it a resignation?

Tycho 6y ago
The original post was updated with more information. Timnit responded with an email requiring that a number of conditions be met in order for her to continue working at Google, including revealing the identities of every person who Megan and I had spoken to and consulted as part of the review of the paper and the exact feedback. Timnit wrote that if we didn’t meet these demands, she would leave Google and work on an end date. We accept and respect her decision to resign from Google. I would say that describes a conditional resignation, and the fact that she called this “being fired” indicates she didn’t really plan to resign (ie. she was bluffing).
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  She called it being fired because Google terminated her employment earlier than she offered to resign.
  - Tycho 6y ago
    It’s a strange reaction though. “I’m resigning.” “OK, that’s your prerogative, bye.” “Wait! I didn’t mean NOW! How can you fire me like this?!” Then make a big deal about being fired on social media. Seems to me that someone who genuinely was ready to resign would have just quietly walked away, even if they imagined it ending less abruptly. Can’t know for sure, obviously.
    - pseudalopex 6y ago
      Resigning doesn't mean leaving quietly. Especially for a researcher ordered to retract a paper.

uoaei 6y ago

Y'all are alleging that it was phrased as an ultimatum. I'm not so sure that's the case. Proposing an option of resigning is not the same thing as "I will definitely resign".

Andraia 6y ago
> I'm not so sure that's the case. The person who benefits from your doubt, _and_ could resolve your doubt, chooses not to.
- uoaei 6y ago
  "Chooses not to" is so disingenuous it's hard to take you seriously. She cannot and will not expose that information without inviting all sorts of litigation. This is not a case where she can just "choose" to release that information.
- throwaway2245 6y ago
  If she were making a legal case, then I gather it could harm her case to release this information to the public. So, she might be choosing not to for this reason.