2 ms·

Yet still not a single attempt to understand OP's perspective, actions there, time there, or reason for departure. Just an insistence on an immediate straight s

Yet still not a single attempt to understand OP's perspective, actions there, time there, or reason for departure. Just an insistence on an immediate straight shot to, "Nope, they have dues that must be repaid no matter what". Got it. Edit: And again, I must emphasize nuance. People talented enough to work at a FAANG absolutely can have significant financial issues, outstanding debts, etc. that may make them prioritize finances above ethics. I am surprised that this continuously seems so lost on HN users.

actually_a_dog 4y ago
Not going to answer my direct questions to you, either, huh? Got it.
- jjulius 4y ago
  >Not going to answer my direct questions to you, either, huh? ... it was a single question, and you edited it in as I was responding.
  - actually_a_dog 4y ago
    You've seen it now, and I asked you to "consider" something as well.
    - jjulius 4y ago
      You're coming off a bit more aggressive than this conversation necessitates. My response to your "consideration" is in my edit. Asking one to "consider" something is just that; asking them to think about it. It does not ask for a response (yet I did give you one while you were chastizing me for posting while you edited yours). >what acts do you feel are justified by "just following orders," and under what circumstances? There is a theme here - nuance. I've worked (past tense, and I'll have you know that part of the reason for my departure was my disagreement with this partnership) with FB as a partner in the past, and I am well aware of the incredibly wide variety of roles there. This is exactly why I am insisting that we talk to OP and learn more before we decide that they're a stain on society, need rehabilitation, whathaveyou.
rglullis 4y ago
> People talented enough to work at a FAANG absolutely can have significant financial issues, outstanding debts, etc. that may make them prioritize finances above ethics. You can not use the exceptions to morally justify the general case. Let's say that 2% of the people took a white-collar job there because of some absurd hardship. What is the excuse of the other 98%? Make it higher. Let's say that we are living in a bizarro world where 10% of the people that are well educated, talented, energetic and able to go through such a grueling interview process, yet they are facing some type of hardship. What is the excuse of the other 90%? Also, how long do they need to continue working there until they can resolve their situation? If they took a job just because of the pressure of their hardships, presumably they could settle the score after 2-4 years and then move on to something else? Are these people doing that?
- jjulius 4y ago
  >What is the excuse of the other 98%? Forgive my bluntness, but I don't know how many times I've said this in this comment chain to you and others - fucking ask them. An ex-FB SWE posted here, someone ate him alive for simply having worked there, you piled on, and now you're rhetorically asking me what their excuse is for taking that job. I don't know, and I won't pretend to. I've been saying y'all should ask, and here you are wondering, so... ASK OP. Talk to them. Have a conversation. They're right up there!
  - rglullis 4y ago
    You seem to think that the point is about the particular individual and their story. It's not. I'm not "piling on" anything. My point is that we collectively criticize the leadership on business like Facebook (or any "FAANG" for that matter), but we give a pass on all people that go work there. My point is that we should (collectively) start looking at them as enablers and also be responsible for all the damage that the companies have done. Instead of saying "how cool, Johnny is making 400k/year to work at Google, I wish I could do the same", we should be saying "What's up with Johnny that he needed to sell his soul for $400k/year?"

actually_a_dog 4y ago

Not going to answer my direct questions to you, either, huh? Got it.

jjulius 4y ago
>Not going to answer my direct questions to you, either, huh? ... it was a single question, and you edited it in as I was responding.
- actually_a_dog 4y ago
  You've seen it now, and I asked you to "consider" something as well.
  - jjulius 4y ago
    You're coming off a bit more aggressive than this conversation necessitates. My response to your "consideration" is in my edit. Asking one to "consider" something is just that; asking them to think about it. It does not ask for a response (yet I did give you one while you were chastizing me for posting while you edited yours). >what acts do you feel are justified by "just following orders," and under what circumstances? There is a theme here - nuance. I've worked (past tense, and I'll have you know that part of the reason for my departure was my disagreement with this partnership) with FB as a partner in the past, and I am well aware of the incredibly wide variety of roles there. This is exactly why I am insisting that we talk to OP and learn more before we decide that they're a stain on society, need rehabilitation, whathaveyou.

rglullis 4y ago

> People talented enough to work at a FAANG absolutely can have significant financial issues, outstanding debts, etc. that may make them prioritize finances above ethics. You can not use the exceptions to morally justify the general case. Let's say that 2% of the people took a white-collar job there because of some absurd hardship. What is the excuse of the other 98%? Make it higher. Let's say that we are living in a bizarro world where 10% of the people that are well educated, talented, energetic and able to go through such a grueling interview process, yet they are facing some type of hardship. What is the excuse of the other 90%? Also, how long do they need to continue working there until they can resolve their situation? If they took a job just because of the pressure of their hardships, presumably they could settle the score after 2-4 years and then move on to something else? Are these people doing that?

jjulius 4y ago
>What is the excuse of the other 98%? Forgive my bluntness, but I don't know how many times I've said this in this comment chain to you and others - fucking ask them. An ex-FB SWE posted here, someone ate him alive for simply having worked there, you piled on, and now you're rhetorically asking me what their excuse is for taking that job. I don't know, and I won't pretend to. I've been saying y'all should ask, and here you are wondering, so... ASK OP. Talk to them. Have a conversation. They're right up there!
- rglullis 4y ago
  You seem to think that the point is about the particular individual and their story. It's not. I'm not "piling on" anything. My point is that we collectively criticize the leadership on business like Facebook (or any "FAANG" for that matter), but we give a pass on all people that go work there. My point is that we should (collectively) start looking at them as enablers and also be responsible for all the damage that the companies have done. Instead of saying "how cool, Johnny is making 400k/year to work at Google, I wish I could do the same", we should be saying "What's up with Johnny that he needed to sell his soul for $400k/year?"