4 ms·

VPs are not qualified because they climbed a corporate ladder - they are qualified because they are in charge a wider section of the business and are authorized

by gretch 3y ago

VPs are not qualified because they climbed a corporate ladder - they are qualified because they are in charge a wider section of the business and are authorized to see data from that wide area. If you're an L4 code, you're not going to getting a bunch of confidential data piped to you. >You can read in the trade press what market share everyone has This is exactly the point - some jr associate sipping morning coffee and reading whatever news declaring Monopoly internally is not helpful in any way to the enterprise.

AlbertCory 3y ago
as I said: saying it inside G is not cool. This "confidential" data, though: I call BS. Maybe 40 years ago that was true. Not anymore. The "wider section of the business" : we're talking about a business that transcends G's internals. Your snobbery is showing: "some jr associate sipping morning coffee and reading whatever news declaring Monopoly internally is not helpful in any way to the enterprise." "some jr associate" -- how dare those peasants have an opinion? "sipping morning coffee" -- what does that have to do with anything?
- gretch 3y ago
  Yeah I am being snobby. Look at the root comment we are replying under. Insinuating that they could not say the word “monopoly” could not be said because it was a giant conspiracy to keep it hush. It’s cringe. Same energy as “that’s exactly what a guilty person would say”. Turns out, “I didn’t do it” is also exactly what an innocent person would say.
  - teaearlgraycold 3y ago
    Maybe I'm "cringe" sure. I don't think what I experienced was an admission of guilt. There's a lot of different ways a company can exploit its market position inappropriately. And bringing up a sensitive topic like monopolies can make people uncomfortable because it's related to other ideas - like anti-competitive behavior. I literally had a manager describe a tactic to me that would be illegal anti-competitive behavior. Granted, it was something well outside of his control so he's no risk to the free market. My hope was that by asking about the topic people could confidently describe why Google had no monopolies and wasn't exploiting anything. I didn't get that at all so I stopped.
    - AlbertCory 3y ago
      The real reason is that in Discovery your email would come out. It's not that it makes anyone uncomfortable. > I literally had a manager describe a tactic to me that would be illegal anti-competitive behavior But presumably that was in a face-to-face conversation, which would not be discovered. And "I don't recall" would be his answer if ever asked about it.

by gretch 3y ago

AlbertCory 3y ago

as I said: saying it inside G is not cool. This "confidential" data, though: I call BS. Maybe 40 years ago that was true. Not anymore. The "wider section of the business" : we're talking about a business that transcends G's internals. Your snobbery is showing: "some jr associate sipping morning coffee and reading whatever news declaring Monopoly internally is not helpful in any way to the enterprise." "some jr associate" -- how dare those peasants have an opinion? "sipping morning coffee" -- what does that have to do with anything?

gretch 3y ago
Yeah I am being snobby. Look at the root comment we are replying under. Insinuating that they could not say the word “monopoly” could not be said because it was a giant conspiracy to keep it hush. It’s cringe. Same energy as “that’s exactly what a guilty person would say”. Turns out, “I didn’t do it” is also exactly what an innocent person would say.
- teaearlgraycold 3y ago
  Maybe I'm "cringe" sure. I don't think what I experienced was an admission of guilt. There's a lot of different ways a company can exploit its market position inappropriately. And bringing up a sensitive topic like monopolies can make people uncomfortable because it's related to other ideas - like anti-competitive behavior. I literally had a manager describe a tactic to me that would be illegal anti-competitive behavior. Granted, it was something well outside of his control so he's no risk to the free market. My hope was that by asking about the topic people could confidently describe why Google had no monopolies and wasn't exploiting anything. I didn't get that at all so I stopped.
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    The real reason is that in Discovery your email would come out. It's not that it makes anyone uncomfortable. > I literally had a manager describe a tactic to me that would be illegal anti-competitive behavior But presumably that was in a face-to-face conversation, which would not be discovered. And "I don't recall" would be his answer if ever asked about it.