3 ms·

> I'm not disputing that people are supporting their families Literally just the very post before by you: > What I am saying is that there are people out ther

> I'm not disputing that people are supporting their families Literally just the very post before by you: > What I am saying is that there are people out there legitimately doing jobs because the only other option is their family going hungry. Silicon Valley software engineers are not in that category. This is incoherent. Whatever point you're trying to make is not coming across and doesn't seem important. The initial point I made was that "is anyone excited to work for Google?" is a hilariously naive point of view both in terms of the obvious fact that they often are, and also in terms of a basic ethical framework. I gave examples. Nitpicking them isn't important because there are a million other examples.

cookie_monsta 4y ago
> This is incoherent. I'm sorry you're having trouble following this. I agree that the original "nobody could be excited about working for Google" is a weird and most likely wrong assertion. But answering it by inventing a sub-class of Google workers whose only options are a) keep working for Google or b) let their family STARVE TO DEATH is not very helpful. My original comment: I suspect that if you work at Google you have plenty of other career options before reaching the point where your family has to starve. really said it all. You have every right to be contrary, but it's more interesting if you stick to the topic and don't introduce fanciful edge cases. Yes, there are Googlers who are supporting their families. No, that is not their only option. Maybe there are journalists using Gmail for what should be confidential communication. No, they should not be doing that. Call that nitpicking if you like, that's fine. They seem like simple, fundamental points to me. This thing that you've done a couple of times in this thread of refusing to see a very simple point and then complaining that it isn't "coming across" doesn't really do much to progress the discussion.

cookie_monsta 4y ago

> This is incoherent. I'm sorry you're having trouble following this. I agree that the original "nobody could be excited about working for Google" is a weird and most likely wrong assertion. But answering it by inventing a sub-class of Google workers whose only options are a) keep working for Google or b) let their family STARVE TO DEATH is not very helpful. My original comment: I suspect that if you work at Google you have plenty of other career options before reaching the point where your family has to starve. really said it all. You have every right to be contrary, but it's more interesting if you stick to the topic and don't introduce fanciful edge cases. Yes, there are Googlers who are supporting their families. No, that is not their only option. Maybe there are journalists using Gmail for what should be confidential communication. No, they should not be doing that. Call that nitpicking if you like, that's fine. They seem like simple, fundamental points to me. This thing that you've done a couple of times in this thread of refusing to see a very simple point and then complaining that it isn't "coming across" doesn't really do much to progress the discussion.