4 ms·

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

by 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.
- RC_ITR 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. My literally point is that it’s not informative but rather a common-use term meaning “hired away from a competitor” I get that it should mean more than that, but to most people it doesn’t.

by RC_ITR 4y ago

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.

RC_ITR 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. My literally point is that it’s not informative but rather a common-use term meaning “hired away from a competitor” I get that it should mean more than that, but to most people it doesn’t.