4 ms·

> Then they should have been treated as business from the get-go. There was no doubt some legal council involved, if that's what you are implying. Business doe

> Then they should have been treated as business from the get-go. There was no doubt some legal council involved, if that's what you are implying. Business doesn't really get any more formal than that. It's not some magical place where life is completely different. It's just people being people like any and ever other. Likewise, if that is what you mean, I'm sure you'd retain legal representation in the purchase of the house as well. I've never heard of anyone buying a house without a lawyer. > this wasn't a bunch of 20 year olds with VC money, if most business is conducted at bars and/or the golf course then they should have been aware of it. Aware of what? I think we agree that Musk knew full well that OpenAI abandoning its mandate was possible, if that's what you're referring to. That doesn't mean he has to be happy about it. The 12,000 people let go from Google always knew that they could end up on the chopping block. All employees understand that. That doesn't mean they cannot be unhappy about it. Logically, there is no reason why they should be unhappy about it. But I fully expect most, if not all, of them were unhappy anyway - understandably so. > I guess I assumed that they voted on it based on budgeting requirements. And then probably went to bed crying, because who is happy about being up against such budget constraints? It's a terrible situation to be in. I don't think this picture that they are unfeeling monsters holds any merit. There is some small chance that they truly are all emotionless autists, but probably not. > I don't know that it's something that they would do outside of the organization. If it were one of those individual's child that committed the same act, you don't think they would try and excuse what their child did in much the same manner? They might not be happy about it, but there is, indeed, value in protecting the group (in this case the family unit). I think we can point to all kinds of cases where individuals have tried to do just that. Unless an individual truly lives off in the woods all by themselves, never seen by another human, there will always be groups. While you may technically have a point in a vacuum that groups can command certain behaviour, I'm not sure there is a meaningful distinction to be made. A group-less society doesn't happen.

tombert 2y ago
> I've never heard of anyone buying a house without a lawyer. They're actually not required in Florida. My parents and my sister didn't get a lawyer when buying their houses. I'm sure that they exist in Florida but I honestly hadn't heard of people getting lawyers for buying a house until I moved to New York. > The 12,000 people let go from Google always knew that they could end up on the chopping block. All employees understand that. That doesn't mean they cannot be unhappy about it. Logically, there is no reason why they should be unhappy about it. But I fully expect most, if not all, of them were unhappy anyway - understandably so. Fair enough, though I'd like to point out that it's not quite apples to apples. Yes, most employment in the US is technically at-will, so we all bend over and take it and just pretend that there's not a power imbalance, but I do think that there's a somewhat more implied stability for a typical W2 job (though I think 2022 and 2023 might have killed that delusion for most people). I take W2 jobs specifically because I'm extremely risk-averse, so when I've been laid off it felt a little more...unfair I guess? Like if I wanted the rug pulled from under me I could have started a business. But your point is reasonable enough. I will admit that I do have some trouble having a ton of sympathy for the richest man in the world having his feelings hurt. > I don't think this picture that they are unfeeling monsters holds any merit. I very explicitly said that they felt bad, so I don't really know why you repeated this multiple times because it's not something I ever disagreed with. Whether or not every single human involved with a bad decision feels bad about it, it still happened because, again, an organization is not a person. I don't think most of the people who work at Google (or any large company) are unfeeling monsters. I'm claiming that the bureaucratic collective itself is. > Unless an individual truly lives off in the woods all by themselves, never seen by another human, there will always be groups. I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. There's a difference between "formal organizations have different (and worse) morality than a transaction between two humans" is radically different than saying "I think that the only way people are moral is to live in a unabomber shack". I feel even a relatively thin layer of bureaucracy can effectively allow a lot of people to launder their guilt through the line of "it's just part of the job".

tombert 2y ago

> I've never heard of anyone buying a house without a lawyer. They're actually not required in Florida. My parents and my sister didn't get a lawyer when buying their houses. I'm sure that they exist in Florida but I honestly hadn't heard of people getting lawyers for buying a house until I moved to New York. > The 12,000 people let go from Google always knew that they could end up on the chopping block. All employees understand that. That doesn't mean they cannot be unhappy about it. Logically, there is no reason why they should be unhappy about it. But I fully expect most, if not all, of them were unhappy anyway - understandably so. Fair enough, though I'd like to point out that it's not quite apples to apples. Yes, most employment in the US is technically at-will, so we all bend over and take it and just pretend that there's not a power imbalance, but I do think that there's a somewhat more implied stability for a typical W2 job (though I think 2022 and 2023 might have killed that delusion for most people). I take W2 jobs specifically because I'm extremely risk-averse, so when I've been laid off it felt a little more...unfair I guess? Like if I wanted the rug pulled from under me I could have started a business. But your point is reasonable enough. I will admit that I do have some trouble having a ton of sympathy for the richest man in the world having his feelings hurt. > I don't think this picture that they are unfeeling monsters holds any merit. I very explicitly said that they felt bad, so I don't really know why you repeated this multiple times because it's not something I ever disagreed with. Whether or not every single human involved with a bad decision feels bad about it, it still happened because, again, an organization is not a person. I don't think most of the people who work at Google (or any large company) are unfeeling monsters. I'm claiming that the bureaucratic collective itself is. > Unless an individual truly lives off in the woods all by themselves, never seen by another human, there will always be groups. I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. There's a difference between "formal organizations have different (and worse) morality than a transaction between two humans" is radically different than saying "I think that the only way people are moral is to live in a unabomber shack". I feel even a relatively thin layer of bureaucracy can effectively allow a lot of people to launder their guilt through the line of "it's just part of the job".