4 ms·

Did you read the article? They're funneling company funds into the cult. It's literally embezzlement.

rendall 4y ago
First, questioning whether someone read the article is against the guidelines. Please don't do that. Secondly, according to the article, "everyone" at Google knew, and he was a contractor. Once he raised his concerns, he did his duty. At that point, it's Google's business, and it's up to them to do something about it. Or not, if they'd rather. Maybe management liked their work and so looked past the "embezzlement", but would have to do something if this guy kept making a stink. Or some other scenario.
- ineedasername 4y ago
  >did his duty Getting fired potentially in retaliation seems reasonable justification for speaking out beyond quietly reporting an incident to your employer. Especially when the group involved is alleged to be intimidating people into silence. Seems like a great reason to instead shout about the issue quite loudly. Not least of which because small corruption may go side by side with larger corruption.
- glenstein 4y ago
  >First, questioning whether someone read the article is against the guidelines. Please don't do that. This thread is an excellent illustration of what's likely an unintended consequence of that guideline, and of all the places to raise it, this is probably the least constructive and least in conformance with any possible intention of the guideline. If someone doesn't RTFA but contributes really interesting thoughts on, say, AI, or the efficiency of a programming language, such scolding chills valuable discussion. That's understandable. Even responding as a scold to low effort comments is not very readable and the exercise in scolding, however correct, isn't conducive to good discussion. So it's understandable there too. But here, you're using it in response to a constructive comment expressing a legitimate point over something that's crucial to undestanding and engaging with the article. I can't fathom what purpose you think that rule has if you think this is the right place to invoke it.
  - rendall 4y ago
    > But here, you're using it in response to a constructive comment expressing a legitimate point over... Not at all. It's unnecessarily rude. The point could as well have been made without it. "How can you say that? They were embezzling!"
    - glenstein 4y ago
      It's an appropriate exhortation to pay attention to key details and doesn't involve any insult. And this is unresponsive to just about everything in my previous comment about why invoking etiquette in this context was unconstructive.
      - rendall 4y ago
        It was rude, and against guidelines, and you're defending this poor behavior. And you're doing it with a thesaurus. Ridiculous.
happyopossum 4y ago
> It's literally embezzlement No. What's been alleged (steering alcohol purchase contracts to their own winery) is unethical and potentially illegal, but embezzlement is a very different type of theft.

First, questioning whether someone read the article is against the guidelines. Please don't do that. Secondly, according to the article, "everyone" at Google knew, and he was a contractor. Once he raised his concerns, he did his duty. At that point, it's Google's business, and it's up to them to do something about it. Or not, if they'd rather. Maybe management liked their work and so looked past the "embezzlement", but would have to do something if this guy kept making a stink. Or some other scenario.

ineedasername 4y ago
>did his duty Getting fired potentially in retaliation seems reasonable justification for speaking out beyond quietly reporting an incident to your employer. Especially when the group involved is alleged to be intimidating people into silence. Seems like a great reason to instead shout about the issue quite loudly. Not least of which because small corruption may go side by side with larger corruption.
glenstein 4y ago
>First, questioning whether someone read the article is against the guidelines. Please don't do that. This thread is an excellent illustration of what's likely an unintended consequence of that guideline, and of all the places to raise it, this is probably the least constructive and least in conformance with any possible intention of the guideline. If someone doesn't RTFA but contributes really interesting thoughts on, say, AI, or the efficiency of a programming language, such scolding chills valuable discussion. That's understandable. Even responding as a scold to low effort comments is not very readable and the exercise in scolding, however correct, isn't conducive to good discussion. So it's understandable there too. But here, you're using it in response to a constructive comment expressing a legitimate point over something that's crucial to undestanding and engaging with the article. I can't fathom what purpose you think that rule has if you think this is the right place to invoke it.
- rendall 4y ago
  > But here, you're using it in response to a constructive comment expressing a legitimate point over... Not at all. It's unnecessarily rude. The point could as well have been made without it. "How can you say that? They were embezzling!"
  - glenstein 4y ago
    It's an appropriate exhortation to pay attention to key details and doesn't involve any insult. And this is unresponsive to just about everything in my previous comment about why invoking etiquette in this context was unconstructive.
    - rendall 4y ago
      It was rude, and against guidelines, and you're defending this poor behavior. And you're doing it with a thesaurus. Ridiculous.

happyopossum 4y ago

> It's literally embezzlement No. What's been alleged (steering alcohol purchase contracts to their own winery) is unethical and potentially illegal, but embezzlement is a very different type of theft.