6 ms·

I can't make any general statements about what happens to everyone, but in this particular case, I can't complain at all about HR's handling. That's kind of th

I can't make any general statements about what happens to everyone, but in this particular case, I can't complain at all about HR's handling. That's kind of the exception that proves the rule, you think? That is, your outlining of the situation gives a strong suggestion that this sort of thing is common and unless the contractor has pull (say, a relative that works at Google), they can't do anything.

AlbertCory 5y ago
I've always thought the phrase "the exception that proves the rule" is nonsense, btw. There's no such "proof."
- ggm 5y ago
  The phrase is misunderstood. Historically "Proof" is contextually meaning the nature of the test, not passing it. "failed the test"-proof has been "disproved" by this exception, which shows a belief does not generally apply. I'm not explaining this very well but a Google search will throw up better explanations. Some how it's morphed to colloquially mean "yes, that one exception aside, I'm right and you're wrong" as if the negative somehow reinforces the positive.. The phrase "the proof of the pudding is in the eating" helps understand this. The pudding may prove to be bad or good. Find which proof by eating it.
  - AlbertCory 5y ago
    jerf's explanation makes sense. The negative certainly does not reinforce the positive.
    - ggm 5y ago
      Yes. They said it better. It certainly doesn't reinforce the positive, yet people seem to insist on using it as if it does. "Well, yes, that penny did land on it's edge but the exception proves the rule it had to be either heads or tails" type statements abound. No.. the exception proved pennies have three states not two: your argument is busted.
      - heavenlyblue 5y ago
        Exception proves the rule comes from Roman law: if there is a sign saying you can’t park here on Saturdays, it means that you can park here on any other day.
        ggm 5y ago
        I was taught it comes from logic, and argumentation: the act of stating an exception proves a rule as stated (a rule is a claim to an axiom) is wrong. So it's in logic and philosophy, not Roman law.
        Retric 5y ago
        If you’re reading a guide book and it specifically says: “Use spell X to ability kill this boss” the implication is you can’t instantly kill other bosses by using ability X. Logically the statement says nothing beyond what it says, but implicitly by providing the exception you’re stating that the general rule is different. It’s a perfectly rational linguistic argument, though often misused outside of that context.
- jerf 5y ago
  It is an old phrase. In this case, "proves" means something more like "tests". In modern terms, I'd say it's something like, "You don't really know you have a rule until someone has tested it by claiming an exception." e.g., setting a child's bedtime to 9pm will pose no challenge if they voluntarily go to bed at 8:30, it isn't until the exception comes along that you know whether or not you really have a rule.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - verbify 5y ago
    I think the phrase 'proofing yeast' in bread making has the same connotations - you're testing that the yeast is still alive.
    - AlbertCory 5y ago
      Off-topic here, but since I'm often making pizza dough: I always wondered about that word. If you want to test yeast, you just put it in some sugar water & see if it foams. But then, I guess you can't do that if it's mixed with flour & other stuff?
- zamfi 5y ago
  I think the intent behind the modern usage of "the exception that proves the rule" is that: a) the rule is a heuristic, not a hard-and-fast rule, and b) the notability of exceptions suggests that the heuristic is pretty good. In other words, if the exception is, in fact, exceptional, it reinforces that the heuristic is reasonably valid for non-exceptional cases. In this case, the fact that it took the intervention of the family-friend-who-works-at-Google-HQ to resolve a pay dispute is an exceptional circumstance, and reinforces that for most people, because presumably most people don't have a family friend who works at Google HQ, there is no recourse to pay disputes. Hence, the exception—by being exceptional—proves the heuristic rule that most employees of these contractor corps have little power to negotiate for their rights.
  - AlbertCory 5y ago
    Another commonly misused phrase is "begging the question" which you have done here. It means "assuming that which you need to prove." You have no proof that it was exceptional. All you have is one case. You have no idea what other people in pay disputes end up doing.
    - labster 5y ago
      This kind of pedantry about which words people use to make an argument is literally garbage.
      - tomrod 5y ago
        To continue the spirit of the many nested comments now going back and forth: Metaphorically.
        labster 5y ago
        People who ignore semantic drift are literally gay.
        tomrod 5y ago
- x3n0ph3n3 5y ago
  It's so misused most of the time. The clearest, correct example of it I've seen is a sign that says "No Parking from 10PM to 5AM". This is an exception to the otherwise unstated rule that parking is allowed during all other times, therefore proving it exists. I disagree with most of the commenters that want to apply the phrase to heuristic claims.
  - Nition 5y ago
    This is currently the only reply that's downvoted below zero, but this is also the only reply that matches the definition of the phrase as I understood it.
- timoth3y 5y ago
  The word "prove" used to also encompass the meaning of "challenge" or "put to the test". It still retains that archaic meaning in the phrase you mentioned and terms like "proving grounds". Edit: And like so many other proverbs like "A few bad apples", "Blood is thicker than water", "Carpe diem", "The exception proves the rule" means exactly the opposite of what most people think it does.
  - 6502nerdface 5y ago
    Also "proof reading" and "100 proof whisky".
    - addaon 5y ago
      And proofing dough.
  - IggleSniggle 5y ago
    In the case of “blood is thicker than water,” unfortunately, the more historically common understanding is also its most common understanding today, and has been for so many centuries that we dont actually know if it originated with its original meaning or it’s inverse. I’m bringing this up because, for many years, I was one of the folk who spread the idea that it actually was supposed to mean “the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb.” But there’s no strong historical basis for this, lovely as the idea may be. — As for the “bad apple” one, I didn’t realize that it was commonly misunderstood. I always felt like someone mentioning that someone was “a bad apple” was an almost violent accusation: the person needed to be extricated from the group, less the group become infected by their corruption. I am now trying to think back to times when I’ve heard this one used and wondering if I misunderstood the intent.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    > The word "prove" used to also encompass the meaning of "challenge" or "put to the test". Yes but "There is little evidence of the phrase being used in this second way.", citations located at wikipedia. So I think it makes more sense to go with the interpretation of "if someone lists an exception, then that's proof of a more general rule that it's an exception from". But with that use, something specifically has to be an exception. Anyone applying "exception proves the rule" to an anecdote is using it wrong.
- tomcam 5y ago
  Agreed. It is infuriating because it is internally inconsistent on its face. The way logic works, an exception disproves the rule. Surprise, surprise.
  - Aune 5y ago
    No. It is a legal principle. If there is a sign stating: "Parking prohibited 03am - 07am" then that implies that parking is allowed outside that window of time.
- zosima 5y ago
  The exception that proves the rule is from a legal argument by Cicero. It means that if someone bothers to write an exception in a law, say e.g. "but in case window is broken by stone smaller than 1 cm in diameter, then it's the owner of the window that should pay reparations", then in the general case it's likely the thrower of the stone that pays, otherwise there would have been no point in adding so specific an exception.
  - Viliam1234 5y ago
    This is the correct answer. "Exception proves the rule" = a documented exception is an evidence that a general rule exists. When you see text "kids under age of 3 years don't have to pay", you can conclude that older people are supposed to pay. The analogy for Google situation would be if hypothetically someone found an internal e-mail written by the boss of Google HR department saying "contractors who have relatives in Google, or who have published their story on Hacker News front page, need to be fully paid for their work". Then we could conclude that other contractors typically don't get fully paid, even if there is nothing in the e-mail saying that.
- bregma 5y ago
  The "rule" is the null hypothesis. The exception is a result about three standard deviations from the null hypothesis. Finding such an exception result means you can not reject the null hypothesis. The argument is that not being able to reject the null hypothesis means that the null hypothesis is correct. This is an invalid argument. We're sorry but we can not accept your submission at this time.
kongin 5y ago
I can summarize OPs post even more succinctly: Nepotism in google only way to get paid.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

AlbertCory 5y ago

I've always thought the phrase "the exception that proves the rule" is nonsense, btw. There's no such "proof."

ggm 5y ago
The phrase is misunderstood. Historically "Proof" is contextually meaning the nature of the test, not passing it. "failed the test"-proof has been "disproved" by this exception, which shows a belief does not generally apply. I'm not explaining this very well but a Google search will throw up better explanations. Some how it's morphed to colloquially mean "yes, that one exception aside, I'm right and you're wrong" as if the negative somehow reinforces the positive.. The phrase "the proof of the pudding is in the eating" helps understand this. The pudding may prove to be bad or good. Find which proof by eating it.
- AlbertCory 5y ago
  jerf's explanation makes sense. The negative certainly does not reinforce the positive.
  - ggm 5y ago
    Yes. They said it better. It certainly doesn't reinforce the positive, yet people seem to insist on using it as if it does. "Well, yes, that penny did land on it's edge but the exception proves the rule it had to be either heads or tails" type statements abound. No.. the exception proved pennies have three states not two: your argument is busted.
    - heavenlyblue 5y ago
      Exception proves the rule comes from Roman law: if there is a sign saying you can’t park here on Saturdays, it means that you can park here on any other day.
      - ggm 5y ago
        I was taught it comes from logic, and argumentation: the act of stating an exception proves a rule as stated (a rule is a claim to an axiom) is wrong. So it's in logic and philosophy, not Roman law.
        Retric 5y ago
        If you’re reading a guide book and it specifically says: “Use spell X to ability kill this boss” the implication is you can’t instantly kill other bosses by using ability X. Logically the statement says nothing beyond what it says, but implicitly by providing the exception you’re stating that the general rule is different. It’s a perfectly rational linguistic argument, though often misused outside of that context.
jerf 5y ago
It is an old phrase. In this case, "proves" means something more like "tests". In modern terms, I'd say it's something like, "You don't really know you have a rule until someone has tested it by claiming an exception." e.g., setting a child's bedtime to 9pm will pose no challenge if they voluntarily go to bed at 8:30, it isn't until the exception comes along that you know whether or not you really have a rule.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- verbify 5y ago
  I think the phrase 'proofing yeast' in bread making has the same connotations - you're testing that the yeast is still alive.
  - AlbertCory 5y ago
    Off-topic here, but since I'm often making pizza dough: I always wondered about that word. If you want to test yeast, you just put it in some sugar water & see if it foams. But then, I guess you can't do that if it's mixed with flour & other stuff?
zamfi 5y ago
I think the intent behind the modern usage of "the exception that proves the rule" is that: a) the rule is a heuristic, not a hard-and-fast rule, and b) the notability of exceptions suggests that the heuristic is pretty good. In other words, if the exception is, in fact, exceptional, it reinforces that the heuristic is reasonably valid for non-exceptional cases. In this case, the fact that it took the intervention of the family-friend-who-works-at-Google-HQ to resolve a pay dispute is an exceptional circumstance, and reinforces that for most people, because presumably most people don't have a family friend who works at Google HQ, there is no recourse to pay disputes. Hence, the exception—by being exceptional—proves the heuristic rule that most employees of these contractor corps have little power to negotiate for their rights.
- AlbertCory 5y ago
  Another commonly misused phrase is "begging the question" which you have done here. It means "assuming that which you need to prove." You have no proof that it was exceptional. All you have is one case. You have no idea what other people in pay disputes end up doing.
  - labster 5y ago
    This kind of pedantry about which words people use to make an argument is literally garbage.
    - tomrod 5y ago
      To continue the spirit of the many nested comments now going back and forth: Metaphorically.
      - labster 5y ago
        People who ignore semantic drift are literally gay.
        tomrod 5y ago
x3n0ph3n3 5y ago
It's so misused most of the time. The clearest, correct example of it I've seen is a sign that says "No Parking from 10PM to 5AM". This is an exception to the otherwise unstated rule that parking is allowed during all other times, therefore proving it exists. I disagree with most of the commenters that want to apply the phrase to heuristic claims.
- Nition 5y ago
  This is currently the only reply that's downvoted below zero, but this is also the only reply that matches the definition of the phrase as I understood it.
timoth3y 5y ago
The word "prove" used to also encompass the meaning of "challenge" or "put to the test". It still retains that archaic meaning in the phrase you mentioned and terms like "proving grounds". Edit: And like so many other proverbs like "A few bad apples", "Blood is thicker than water", "Carpe diem", "The exception proves the rule" means exactly the opposite of what most people think it does.
- 6502nerdface 5y ago
  Also "proof reading" and "100 proof whisky".
  - addaon 5y ago
    And proofing dough.
- IggleSniggle 5y ago
  In the case of “blood is thicker than water,” unfortunately, the more historically common understanding is also its most common understanding today, and has been for so many centuries that we dont actually know if it originated with its original meaning or it’s inverse. I’m bringing this up because, for many years, I was one of the folk who spread the idea that it actually was supposed to mean “the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb.” But there’s no strong historical basis for this, lovely as the idea may be. — As for the “bad apple” one, I didn’t realize that it was commonly misunderstood. I always felt like someone mentioning that someone was “a bad apple” was an almost violent accusation: the person needed to be extricated from the group, less the group become infected by their corruption. I am now trying to think back to times when I’ve heard this one used and wondering if I misunderstood the intent.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  > The word "prove" used to also encompass the meaning of "challenge" or "put to the test". Yes but "There is little evidence of the phrase being used in this second way.", citations located at wikipedia. So I think it makes more sense to go with the interpretation of "if someone lists an exception, then that's proof of a more general rule that it's an exception from". But with that use, something specifically has to be an exception. Anyone applying "exception proves the rule" to an anecdote is using it wrong.
tomcam 5y ago
Agreed. It is infuriating because it is internally inconsistent on its face. The way logic works, an exception disproves the rule. Surprise, surprise.
- Aune 5y ago
  No. It is a legal principle. If there is a sign stating: "Parking prohibited 03am - 07am" then that implies that parking is allowed outside that window of time.
zosima 5y ago
The exception that proves the rule is from a legal argument by Cicero. It means that if someone bothers to write an exception in a law, say e.g. "but in case window is broken by stone smaller than 1 cm in diameter, then it's the owner of the window that should pay reparations", then in the general case it's likely the thrower of the stone that pays, otherwise there would have been no point in adding so specific an exception.
- Viliam1234 5y ago
  This is the correct answer. "Exception proves the rule" = a documented exception is an evidence that a general rule exists. When you see text "kids under age of 3 years don't have to pay", you can conclude that older people are supposed to pay. The analogy for Google situation would be if hypothetically someone found an internal e-mail written by the boss of Google HR department saying "contractors who have relatives in Google, or who have published their story on Hacker News front page, need to be fully paid for their work". Then we could conclude that other contractors typically don't get fully paid, even if there is nothing in the e-mail saying that.
bregma 5y ago
The "rule" is the null hypothesis. The exception is a result about three standard deviations from the null hypothesis. Finding such an exception result means you can not reject the null hypothesis. The argument is that not being able to reject the null hypothesis means that the null hypothesis is correct. This is an invalid argument. We're sorry but we can not accept your submission at this time.

kongin 5y ago

I can summarize OPs post even more succinctly: Nepotism in google only way to get paid.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]