5 ms·
I think I covered that in #1 & #2, unless there's something subtle I missed.
by sjs382 6y ago
I think I covered that in #1 & #2, unless there's something subtle I missed.
- davorak 6y agoI think the subtle part might be "It was approved then", I read that somewhere too and it was not clear whether it was approved by google despite it not following the normal 2 week process or if it was talking about some other form of approval.
- tfehring 6y agoFrom Dean's email: >Unfortunately, this particular paper was only shared with a day’s notice before its deadline — we require two weeks for this sort of review — and then instead of awaiting reviewer feedback, it was approved for submission and submitted. Not sure what to make of that - maybe that Gebru submitted the paper and then immediately clicked the "approve" button herself?
- sjs382 6y agoYeah, I had a hard time making heads and tails of what that bit meant, exactly.
- mehrdada 6y agoMost definitely not. I think that is a critical detail. You can be 100% sure if she clicked on Approve herself, Jeff would have either omitted that fact entirely or definitely explicitly mentioned it was a self-approval. Some other person clicked on Approve for sure and they are somehow not putting any responsibility on that person in this public narrative.
- kazamaloo 6y agoit is sort of a placeholder approval. The actual reviews may be done by a legal team, HR/PR, other researchers in the field etc.
- FeepingCreature 6y agoA "placeholder approval" is also known as an "approval". If they didn't want to approve it, they shouldn't have done it.
- kazamaloo 6y agowhat you refer to as "they" are two different entities.
- FeepingCreature 6y agoIf the company doesn't even have a clear indication who is authorized to approve things, that seems much more a Google problem.
- mehrdada 6y agoDo you have actual information or just randomly speculating about the nature of that "approval" under a newly created anonymous HackerNews account?