7 ms·

This title should be amended to eliminate the (imo) implication that he did so as a result of the firings. "He did not mention their firings in his farewell no

This title should be amended to eliminate the (imo) implication that he did so as a result of the firings. "He did not mention their firings in his farewell note."

karaterobot 6y ago
This is a great example of the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy, caught in the wild! It may very well be the case, that his leaving is related to his colleagues being fired, but there's no evidence of it in the article. So Reuters should not be strongly implying — to the extent that no reader would likely draw any other conclusion — that it is. I mean, it probably is, let's be honest, but I kind of expect better from Reuters.
- coding123 6y ago
  Well he did do it after. The article mentions multiple links and things he said.
- ska 6y ago
  > but there's no evidence of it in the article. That's not quite correct, but true that the evidence presented is weak (e.g. anonymous "sources familiar")
  - Natsu 6y ago
    At this point, I honestly mistrust that kind of source and treat it as no more than a rumor someone heard.
    - whimsicalism 6y ago
      I mean, it comes down to whether you trust Reuters. I find that people tend to trust anonymous sources on issues that they agree with, and distrust on issues they don't.
      - Natsu 6y ago
        I actually distrust such sources when I agree with them because I believe that I'm more vulnerable to being manipulated in that case. And I mistrust the process of reporting anonymous sources like it, not Reuters per se. That is, I would mistrust this no matter who it is saying it because the process itself is untrustworthy and unverifiable. If I were writing such an article (and I have written quite a few news articles, mostly about scientific or legal matters), I would leave this information out entirely. A more trustworthy way to do this is to name a source and give their basis for claiming to know that. E.G. Person X heard Bengio say XYZ or what have you. But if your source isn't willing to go on the record, I would leave it out to avoid reporting rumors.
whymauri 6y ago
IMO, would also be helpful to have the first name since there's Yoshua Bengio.
- partingshots 6y ago
  It was most likely done on purpose unfortunately.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jjulius 6y ago
In the interest of eliminating implications, you included a period at the end of that quote, which suggests there's nothing else to that statement. In point of fact, the full sentence is: >"Though he did not mention the firings in his farewell note, they influenced his decision to resign, people familiar with the matter said, speaking on condition of anonymity." A farewell note is a formality for many people. I'd wager, given that this article discusses his previous statements on the matter, the firings did influence his decision. Having said that, it seems that he's departing as professionally as he possibly can, without blowing things up on the way out. Prospective employers won't have to be afraid of him making a scene even if he disagrees with them.
- refenestrator 6y ago
  I would really like to hope that "people familiar with the matter" means Bengio off the record, and not some non-Bengio person with an axe to grind... impossible to know, I guess.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    ? Commenting on the reasons someone made a decision doesn't mean that they have an axe to grind, any more than "anonymous aide familiar with Biden's decisionmaking says X" means that this anonymous aide has it out for Biden.
    - gowld 6y ago
      This isn't someone speaking on background for the figurehead. It's a coworker injecting their own opinion/advocacy.
      - whimsicalism 6y ago
        Based on...? You're presuming what they are saying is untrue.
        6y ago
The_Other_David 6y ago
I think most people would consider it to be highly inappropriate to air grievances with the company or with individuals as a part of a semi-public farewell letter, even if you are DEFINITELY leaving for a VERY SPECIFIC reason.
- jjulius 6y ago
  Correct, and I think it's a very common thing for people to opt not to burn those bridges if they can help it. Who among us hasn't played the whole, "Thanks [company], I've really loved my time here," bit and smiled on the way out while simultaneously thinking, "Fuck this place entirely"?
  - brutus1213 6y ago
    That's the way it works, right? At one of my employers, I was stunned to see a number of people's farewell letters filled with complaints and how bad their experience was. I was quite shocked personally. That said, I accept people needed to vent and it didn't really seem to burn a bridge when it comes to their colleagues (maybe the organization).

This title should be amended to eliminate the (imo) implication that he did so as a result of the firings. "He did not mention their firings in his farewell note."

karaterobot 6y ago

This is a great example of the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy, caught in the wild! It may very well be the case, that his leaving is related to his colleagues being fired, but there's no evidence of it in the article. So Reuters should not be strongly implying — to the extent that no reader would likely draw any other conclusion — that it is. I mean, it probably is, let's be honest, but I kind of expect better from Reuters.

coding123 6y ago
Well he did do it after. The article mentions multiple links and things he said.
ska 6y ago
> but there's no evidence of it in the article. That's not quite correct, but true that the evidence presented is weak (e.g. anonymous "sources familiar")
- Natsu 6y ago
  At this point, I honestly mistrust that kind of source and treat it as no more than a rumor someone heard.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    I mean, it comes down to whether you trust Reuters. I find that people tend to trust anonymous sources on issues that they agree with, and distrust on issues they don't.
    - Natsu 6y ago
      I actually distrust such sources when I agree with them because I believe that I'm more vulnerable to being manipulated in that case. And I mistrust the process of reporting anonymous sources like it, not Reuters per se. That is, I would mistrust this no matter who it is saying it because the process itself is untrustworthy and unverifiable. If I were writing such an article (and I have written quite a few news articles, mostly about scientific or legal matters), I would leave this information out entirely. A more trustworthy way to do this is to name a source and give their basis for claiming to know that. E.G. Person X heard Bengio say XYZ or what have you. But if your source isn't willing to go on the record, I would leave it out to avoid reporting rumors.

whymauri 6y ago

IMO, would also be helpful to have the first name since there's Yoshua Bengio.

partingshots 6y ago
It was most likely done on purpose unfortunately.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jjulius 6y ago

In the interest of eliminating implications, you included a period at the end of that quote, which suggests there's nothing else to that statement. In point of fact, the full sentence is: >"Though he did not mention the firings in his farewell note, they influenced his decision to resign, people familiar with the matter said, speaking on condition of anonymity." A farewell note is a formality for many people. I'd wager, given that this article discusses his previous statements on the matter, the firings did influence his decision. Having said that, it seems that he's departing as professionally as he possibly can, without blowing things up on the way out. Prospective employers won't have to be afraid of him making a scene even if he disagrees with them.

refenestrator 6y ago
I would really like to hope that "people familiar with the matter" means Bengio off the record, and not some non-Bengio person with an axe to grind... impossible to know, I guess.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  ? Commenting on the reasons someone made a decision doesn't mean that they have an axe to grind, any more than "anonymous aide familiar with Biden's decisionmaking says X" means that this anonymous aide has it out for Biden.
  - gowld 6y ago
    This isn't someone speaking on background for the figurehead. It's a coworker injecting their own opinion/advocacy.
    - whimsicalism 6y ago
      Based on...? You're presuming what they are saying is untrue.
      - 6y ago

The_Other_David 6y ago

I think most people would consider it to be highly inappropriate to air grievances with the company or with individuals as a part of a semi-public farewell letter, even if you are DEFINITELY leaving for a VERY SPECIFIC reason.

jjulius 6y ago
Correct, and I think it's a very common thing for people to opt not to burn those bridges if they can help it. Who among us hasn't played the whole, "Thanks [company], I've really loved my time here," bit and smiled on the way out while simultaneously thinking, "Fuck this place entirely"?
- brutus1213 6y ago
  That's the way it works, right? At one of my employers, I was stunned to see a number of people's farewell letters filled with complaints and how bad their experience was. I was quite shocked personally. That said, I accept people needed to vent and it didn't really seem to burn a bridge when it comes to their colleagues (maybe the organization).