3 ms·
DOJ alleges that a) is factual [1]. Perhaps not in your training but I've also never seen the slides in the pdf before. [1]: https://regmedia.co.uk/2022/03/22/
by lesuorac 4y ago
DOJ alleges that a) is factual [1]. Perhaps not in your training but I've also never seen the slides in the pdf before.
[1]: https://regmedia.co.uk/2022/03/22/memo_in_support-to-sanction_goog.pdf https://regmedia.co.uk/2022/03/22/memo_in_support-to-sanctio...
- jefftk 4y agoGood point; I was trying to talk about the standard company wide training on communication and privilege. Even though I worked in a relatively legally tricky area, the only training I got on privilege was company-level, and I was assuming (incorrectly apparently) that that was how it worked throughout the company.
- choppaface 4y agoThe response here further supplements the argument that Googlers (and ex-Googlers apparently) care more about winning the debate they can see (even if they’re fundamentally wrong as evidence showed here) instead of trying to imagine a life after Search. As a taxpayer and Google shareholder, I definitely want technical talent diverted into making real products versus playing epistemic games with the DOJ or finding new creative ways to subvert discovery. We wasted enough fighting Microsoft, we don’t need to do it again just because Googlers think they’re better.