7 ms·

Um - she wasn’t fired because of her paper - she required they out an anonymous reviewer or she wouldn’t be able to work there. It’s pretty likely the reviewer

Um - she wasn’t fired because of her paper - she required they out an anonymous reviewer or she wouldn’t be able to work there. It’s pretty likely the reviewer would have been harassed - a good thing perhaps if you have one view of thing - but a bad thing from another perspective. Google refused and accepted that she writing be able to continue working there

sillysaurusx 5y ago
This is the common story, yes. But it evaporates when you dig into the details, which I've posted below. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28965631 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28965631 I think it's worth reflecting on why we're so quick to believe the corporate version of events. Corporations have an astronomical amount of power and influence. Aren't you at least a little curious whether it's true? And if there was nothing wrong with her paper, that raises the question of why an anonymous reviewer was grilling her about it.
- shaklee3 5y ago
  Do you have sources other than quoting yourself on HN? I'd like to read them
- geodel 5y ago
  > I think it's worth reflecting on why we're so quick to believe the corporate version of events I reflected on it and found that it mainly happens when the person affect have their entire work life on basis of their politics as opposed other victims of corporate malfeasance who get plenty of support/ empathy from general community.
- freyir 5y ago
  It very much does not evaporate. Her paper got got flagged during internal review. There wasn’t time to revise it because she submitted it late. She then wrote an angry rant to her coworkers that claimed she was oppressed and told them to stop working. And then she demanded the name of the anonymous reviewer and threatened to quit if the company did not meet her demand. Your defense is that most papers were submitted late without a problem. Perhaps most papers don’t need revisions, but this one did, and there’s no excuse for how she handled it. I’ve had papers rejected from my company’s internal review process. It sucks, but it’s not the end of the world. You make some revisions and submit to the next conference. You don’t go ballistic and tell your coworkers their work is meaningless and threaten to quit unless you get your way.
  - sillysaurusx 5y ago
    (The subthread below contains the refutations, so I won't copy them here. I left a reply at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28966286 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28966286, but you might want to climb it upwards to see why this is mistaken. Suffice to say, her paper passed the internal review, and was subjected to a second review that wasn't policy at the time.)
    - freyir 5y ago
      Nothing I said above was refuted or mistaken. You claim that her paper was internally reviewed twice and you chose to ignore evidence to the contrary. And somehow you managed throughout to completely disregard Timnit’s own responsibility in the situation.
      - TheRealNGenius 5y ago
        Right, Timbit sent a public letter of resignation, and Google accepted. Nothing more nothing less.
        throwawaylinux 5y ago
        Can a private company not accept a letter of resignation? Would that be a violation of the 13th amendment?
        carlivar 5y ago
        If the terms of the resignation contradict terms in the employment agreement, I would think so. As long as the employment agreement is legal itself.
        throwawaylinux 5y ago
        Duh, yes of course, good point! Not sure what I was thinking.

sillysaurusx 5y ago

This is the common story, yes. But it evaporates when you dig into the details, which I've posted below. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28965631 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28965631 I think it's worth reflecting on why we're so quick to believe the corporate version of events. Corporations have an astronomical amount of power and influence. Aren't you at least a little curious whether it's true? And if there was nothing wrong with her paper, that raises the question of why an anonymous reviewer was grilling her about it.

shaklee3 5y ago
Do you have sources other than quoting yourself on HN? I'd like to read them
geodel 5y ago
> I think it's worth reflecting on why we're so quick to believe the corporate version of events I reflected on it and found that it mainly happens when the person affect have their entire work life on basis of their politics as opposed other victims of corporate malfeasance who get plenty of support/ empathy from general community.
freyir 5y ago
It very much does not evaporate. Her paper got got flagged during internal review. There wasn’t time to revise it because she submitted it late. She then wrote an angry rant to her coworkers that claimed she was oppressed and told them to stop working. And then she demanded the name of the anonymous reviewer and threatened to quit if the company did not meet her demand. Your defense is that most papers were submitted late without a problem. Perhaps most papers don’t need revisions, but this one did, and there’s no excuse for how she handled it. I’ve had papers rejected from my company’s internal review process. It sucks, but it’s not the end of the world. You make some revisions and submit to the next conference. You don’t go ballistic and tell your coworkers their work is meaningless and threaten to quit unless you get your way.
- sillysaurusx 5y ago
  (The subthread below contains the refutations, so I won't copy them here. I left a reply at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28966286 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28966286, but you might want to climb it upwards to see why this is mistaken. Suffice to say, her paper passed the internal review, and was subjected to a second review that wasn't policy at the time.)
  - freyir 5y ago
    Nothing I said above was refuted or mistaken. You claim that her paper was internally reviewed twice and you chose to ignore evidence to the contrary. And somehow you managed throughout to completely disregard Timnit’s own responsibility in the situation.
    - TheRealNGenius 5y ago
      Right, Timbit sent a public letter of resignation, and Google accepted. Nothing more nothing less.
      - throwawaylinux 5y ago
        Can a private company not accept a letter of resignation? Would that be a violation of the 13th amendment?
        carlivar 5y ago
        If the terms of the resignation contradict terms in the employment agreement, I would think so. As long as the employment agreement is legal itself.
        throwawaylinux 5y ago
        Duh, yes of course, good point! Not sure what I was thinking.