3 ms·

> "...poached..." I hate it when a company hiring someone who used to work for a competitor is characterized poaching... These are people with their own agenc

by jmull 4y ago

> "...poached..." I hate it when a company hiring someone who used to work for a competitor is characterized poaching... These are people with their own agency and the freedom to find a better situation if they can, and not the presumptive property of one company or another.

robertlagrant 4y ago
If you misread implications into that word, let me introduce you to "headhunting".
- draw_down 4y ago
- brookst 4y ago
  I for one support engineer rights and will only buy products produced with 100% free range talent. Ring fencing is inhumane. How are they supposed to get home to see their families?
zug_zug 4y ago
Moreover, from a simplistic traditional economics perspective (which these companies love to tout so much) it's allegedly the most optimal / best thing for society as a whole when people leave jobs for higher-bids. [Though in this case it's probably just perpetuating a search monopoly that is leading to a terrible user experience]
hnbear 4y ago
Except that Google can offer sufficient amounts of money to make it insane not to move. (Yes, I know Apple has deep pockets too). I'm mostly curious here if they were hired back by Google because Google genuinely wants their talent, or if they just want to deprive Apple of their talent. Poached isn't a great word, but there's difference in intent in behavior.
- acdha 4y ago
  Poach has a very specific meaning: illegally hunting animals which belong to someone else. That’s never the right word to describe someone taking a better job offer, but it’s especially inappropriate in a context of these two companies having a recent history of illegal wage-fixing.
  - chrismarlow9 4y ago
    I mean you can poach an egg, it's not that strict
    - acdha 4y ago
      True, but there probably aren’t that many readers who thought it meant Google cooked someone. The other meaning is a specialized form of theft.
      - pc86 4y ago
        And the third definition that you are conveniently ignoring is the one that matters here: "to attract (someone, such as an employee or customer) away from a competitor"[0] I wonder if this pedantic nonsense on HN is ever going to stop? "Poach" is a perfectly fine word to use here, everyone knows exactly what it means, and for the love of god it's not depriving anyone of any "agency." [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poach https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poach
        chrismarlow9 4y ago
        It won't end. Ego is a helluva drug.
        jmull 4y ago
        However, that definition is derived from the one meaning to hunt, illegally or without permission, on someone else's property. It retains the implication of unfairly taking or appropriating something belonging to someone else. Read every other definition on the page you linked. Here are some more: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/poach https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/poach This one has essentially the same definition from your link. But notice the example usage: "They were furious when one of their best managers was poached by another company." Why furious? Because they feel someone took something belonging to them -- that is, the employment opportunity of person. Here's another, where the most benign definition doesn't even make the list: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/poach https://www.dictionary.com/browse/poach > for the love of god it's not depriving anyone of any "agency." I'm not making an abstract point there. You must be unaware of the history of collusion between Apple and Google where they agreed not to poach each other's employees. There's your lack of agency. You can't choose an option that is withheld from you. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/24/apple-google-settle-antitrust-lawsuit-hiring-collusion https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/24/apple-goo...
RC_ITR 4y ago
I won’t get into why, but in general the kind of people who frequent this forum (I.e. people with a natural proclivity towards computers) are very sensitive to “tongue in cheek” turns of phrase that don’t bother most other people. You’re on the right side of history, because it is a stupid and somewhat insensitive thing to say, but just be aware that many people will be caught off guard by how much it impacts you, since they just see it as a cute joke.
- Goronmon 4y ago
  I won’t get into why... You mean companies like Apple and Google specifically conspiring to suppress wages and cross-company hiring? Yeah, I can't imagine why people who could be impacted by that would be bothered by reporting that suggested that type of behavior was warranted.
  - RC_ITR 4y ago
    No, I was trying to be polite in stating that the type of neurodivergence that makes people good hackers also generally leads them to have very strict and literal interpretations of language, whereas most other people are very comfortable with taking poetic license. So things like this seems a lot more important to us than to gen pop. And I was just trying to give a warning of that, since it is one of the key reasons why people like us are considered 'hard to talk to' (unless we take these warnings in stride and work to build coping mechanisms to lessen the impact).
- LeifCarrotson 4y ago
  Framing is not bothersome so much as it is informative. It's the writer's decision to use the word "poached", with all the connotations and implications that carries. But they shouldn't be given free reign to set that tone and tell that kind of story without defending their choices. This is a remarkable story in how much of it is devoted to the facts to allow the reader to draw conclusions. The author doesn't do much moralizing on the migration of expertise and IP, on hiring, and on the nature of competition between large tech corps. It's mostly a statement that Google/Apple/these guys were working on some project relating to search, then something happened, then something else happened, now they're at Google presumably doing Google search things, leaving the reader to wonder what's left of their efforts at Apple. They wrote "With long and involved projects like search, it's not uncommon for staff to move between Apple and Google. In 2018, the same year Apple bought Laserlike, it also poached John Giannandrea from Google." when they could also have written "Another example in 2018 was John Giannandrea's move from Google to Apple." without insinuating malfeasance, ownership, a failure of loyalty, or anything that the word choice "poached" carries.
rcpt 4y ago
Especially considering that they're talking about John Giannandrea who was my great-great-great-grandmanager when he left for Apple.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
meragrin_ 4y ago
Poaching does not imply ownership of the "game". You shoot a deer on my property, hunting season or not, you are a poacher. In my area, hunters are required to acquire permission from landowners. I would not give anyone permission to shoot deer on my property. That does not make me the owner of the deer, just a limited temporary custodian until they decide to leave my property.

by jmull 4y ago

robertlagrant 4y ago

If you misread implications into that word, let me introduce you to "headhunting".

draw_down 4y ago
brookst 4y ago
I for one support engineer rights and will only buy products produced with 100% free range talent. Ring fencing is inhumane. How are they supposed to get home to see their families?

zug_zug 4y ago

Moreover, from a simplistic traditional economics perspective (which these companies love to tout so much) it's allegedly the most optimal / best thing for society as a whole when people leave jobs for higher-bids. [Though in this case it's probably just perpetuating a search monopoly that is leading to a terrible user experience]

hnbear 4y ago

Except that Google can offer sufficient amounts of money to make it insane not to move. (Yes, I know Apple has deep pockets too). I'm mostly curious here if they were hired back by Google because Google genuinely wants their talent, or if they just want to deprive Apple of their talent. Poached isn't a great word, but there's difference in intent in behavior.

acdha 4y ago
Poach has a very specific meaning: illegally hunting animals which belong to someone else. That’s never the right word to describe someone taking a better job offer, but it’s especially inappropriate in a context of these two companies having a recent history of illegal wage-fixing.
- chrismarlow9 4y ago
  I mean you can poach an egg, it's not that strict
  - acdha 4y ago
    True, but there probably aren’t that many readers who thought it meant Google cooked someone. The other meaning is a specialized form of theft.
    - pc86 4y ago
      And the third definition that you are conveniently ignoring is the one that matters here: "to attract (someone, such as an employee or customer) away from a competitor"[0] I wonder if this pedantic nonsense on HN is ever going to stop? "Poach" is a perfectly fine word to use here, everyone knows exactly what it means, and for the love of god it's not depriving anyone of any "agency." [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poach https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poach
      - chrismarlow9 4y ago
        It won't end. Ego is a helluva drug.
      - jmull 4y ago
        However, that definition is derived from the one meaning to hunt, illegally or without permission, on someone else's property. It retains the implication of unfairly taking or appropriating something belonging to someone else. Read every other definition on the page you linked. Here are some more: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/poach https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/poach This one has essentially the same definition from your link. But notice the example usage: "They were furious when one of their best managers was poached by another company." Why furious? Because they feel someone took something belonging to them -- that is, the employment opportunity of person. Here's another, where the most benign definition doesn't even make the list: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/poach https://www.dictionary.com/browse/poach > for the love of god it's not depriving anyone of any "agency." I'm not making an abstract point there. You must be unaware of the history of collusion between Apple and Google where they agreed not to poach each other's employees. There's your lack of agency. You can't choose an option that is withheld from you. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/24/apple-google-settle-antitrust-lawsuit-hiring-collusion https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/24/apple-goo...

RC_ITR 4y ago

I won’t get into why, but in general the kind of people who frequent this forum (I.e. people with a natural proclivity towards computers) are very sensitive to “tongue in cheek” turns of phrase that don’t bother most other people. You’re on the right side of history, because it is a stupid and somewhat insensitive thing to say, but just be aware that many people will be caught off guard by how much it impacts you, since they just see it as a cute joke.

Goronmon 4y ago
I won’t get into why... You mean companies like Apple and Google specifically conspiring to suppress wages and cross-company hiring? Yeah, I can't imagine why people who could be impacted by that would be bothered by reporting that suggested that type of behavior was warranted.
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  No, I was trying to be polite in stating that the type of neurodivergence that makes people good hackers also generally leads them to have very strict and literal interpretations of language, whereas most other people are very comfortable with taking poetic license. So things like this seems a lot more important to us than to gen pop. And I was just trying to give a warning of that, since it is one of the key reasons why people like us are considered 'hard to talk to' (unless we take these warnings in stride and work to build coping mechanisms to lessen the impact).
LeifCarrotson 4y ago
Framing is not bothersome so much as it is informative. It's the writer's decision to use the word "poached", with all the connotations and implications that carries. But they shouldn't be given free reign to set that tone and tell that kind of story without defending their choices. This is a remarkable story in how much of it is devoted to the facts to allow the reader to draw conclusions. The author doesn't do much moralizing on the migration of expertise and IP, on hiring, and on the nature of competition between large tech corps. It's mostly a statement that Google/Apple/these guys were working on some project relating to search, then something happened, then something else happened, now they're at Google presumably doing Google search things, leaving the reader to wonder what's left of their efforts at Apple. They wrote "With long and involved projects like search, it's not uncommon for staff to move between Apple and Google. In 2018, the same year Apple bought Laserlike, it also poached John Giannandrea from Google." when they could also have written "Another example in 2018 was John Giannandrea's move from Google to Apple." without insinuating malfeasance, ownership, a failure of loyalty, or anything that the word choice "poached" carries.

rcpt 4y ago

Especially considering that they're talking about John Giannandrea who was my great-great-great-grandmanager when he left for Apple.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

meragrin_ 4y ago

Poaching does not imply ownership of the "game". You shoot a deer on my property, hunting season or not, you are a poacher. In my area, hunters are required to acquire permission from landowners. I would not give anyone permission to shoot deer on my property. That does not make me the owner of the deer, just a limited temporary custodian until they decide to leave my property.