4 ms·

Uber certainly isn't doing themselves any favors when it comes to shedding their reputation as the most brazen assholes in tech.

by bedhead 11y ago

javert 11y ago
Because paying people a lot more money and saving taxpayers millions of dollars (since we no longer have to pay for those scientists) is being assholish?
- noer 11y ago
  CMU is a private university, so there won't be much in the way of taxpayer savings.
  - NonEUCitizen 11y ago
    Private research universities get a LOT of taxpayer money (e.g. DARPA grants, NSF grants)
    - noer 11y ago
      Right, but hiring 40 scientists away isn't going to reduce that money. Even if CMU doesn't get it, it's not like they're going to save it or give it to some other department or program. At best, it goes to another institution.
      - javert 11y ago
        Yes, but that is a moral indictment of the NSF et al, who will give away their entire budget even if there is no longer anybody qualified to receive the same amount those CMU guys did. And then ask for an even bigger budget the next year. In contrast, it is not a moral indictment of Uber.
  - _1 11y ago
    Their salaries are most likely covered by government grants.
- rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  Tech we take for granted like televisions, microwave ovens, and the Internet, all have significant roots in university research, where the benefits are lately available to the public, whereas private research also privatizes profits. As the article mentioned, there is now a gap to handle research grants, and funded research may go by the wayside. People lose from a dick move.
  - javert 11y ago
    I don't believe that narrative. For every $10 million you let remain in the private economy (instead of shifting to academia), you will get the same or more innovation. IBM, Intel and Google have contributed far more to computer science than academia ever did, and the Internet would have happened either way. I am (temporarily) in academia, and I can tell you, it truly is a Soviet-style allocation system. Of course if you throw enough money at something with a ton of smart people you will get breakthroughs, but in general, it is corrupt, crappy, and only marginally honest.
    - mullen 11y ago
      > IBM, Intel and Google have contributed far more to computer science than academia ever did, and the Internet would have happened either way. I doubt that. The only way that something like the Internet could have been created is if a 'third party' of industry created it, which in this case is academia and DARPA funds. Before the rise of the Internet, there were private paid networks that were restricted and never talked to competing networks. The Internet destroyed those networks and now we get our Internet access (mostly) raw. Also, do you realize that most of the basics and rise of computer science comes out of academia? If a Google or Microsoft could have patiented basic computer tech, they would have, stunting the growth of the field for 50 years or so.
      - javert 11y ago
        > The only way that something like the Internet could have been created is if a 'third party' of industry created it That's not a justified conclusion. If government academics had created airplanes or the internal combusition engine, people would say that was the only way they could have come about. > Also, do you realize that most of the basics and rise of computer science comes out of academia? A lot of the basics of computer science really did come from IBM. > If a Google or Microsoft could have patiented basic computer tech, they would have, stunting the growth of the field for 50 years or so. Patent laws are a government creation, so they're the same basic kind of thing academia is. They are not a fundamental fact about the way human societies and economies work. So we can't take that for granted and then use it as a premise to argue against something else. (I acutally do support certain kinds of patents, though, and the effect of patents is usually the exact opposite of what you say here.)
BukhariH 11y ago
It's not an 'asshole' manoeuvre to pay people more to come work with you. After all those engineers and scientists don't belong to CMU or the NREC.
- bedhead 11y ago
  Circumstances matter. I suppose if Uber hadn't entered into a partnership first, the whole thing would be more palatable. But by going this route, Uber is sending a clear signal to all potential future partners - watch out. I just find it distasteful, and sadly predictable given Uber's history.
goatforce5 11y ago
Universities may see themselves as holier-than-thou, but it's a reality that they have to offer wages that are in line with industry as a whole. Let's say I want to open a new burger joint and I know there's a really good team in a kitchen down the road. Am I smart or a dick for hiring away that team at double their previous wages?

Uber certainly isn't doing themselves any favors when it comes to shedding their reputation as the most brazen assholes in tech.

by bedhead 11y ago

Uber certainly isn't doing themselves any favors when it comes to shedding their reputation as the most brazen assholes in tech.

javert 11y ago

Because paying people a lot more money and saving taxpayers millions of dollars (since we no longer have to pay for those scientists) is being assholish?

noer 11y ago
CMU is a private university, so there won't be much in the way of taxpayer savings.
- NonEUCitizen 11y ago
  Private research universities get a LOT of taxpayer money (e.g. DARPA grants, NSF grants)
  - noer 11y ago
    Right, but hiring 40 scientists away isn't going to reduce that money. Even if CMU doesn't get it, it's not like they're going to save it or give it to some other department or program. At best, it goes to another institution.
    - javert 11y ago
      Yes, but that is a moral indictment of the NSF et al, who will give away their entire budget even if there is no longer anybody qualified to receive the same amount those CMU guys did. And then ask for an even bigger budget the next year. In contrast, it is not a moral indictment of Uber.
- _1 11y ago
  Their salaries are most likely covered by government grants.
rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
Tech we take for granted like televisions, microwave ovens, and the Internet, all have significant roots in university research, where the benefits are lately available to the public, whereas private research also privatizes profits. As the article mentioned, there is now a gap to handle research grants, and funded research may go by the wayside. People lose from a dick move.
- javert 11y ago
  I don't believe that narrative. For every $10 million you let remain in the private economy (instead of shifting to academia), you will get the same or more innovation. IBM, Intel and Google have contributed far more to computer science than academia ever did, and the Internet would have happened either way. I am (temporarily) in academia, and I can tell you, it truly is a Soviet-style allocation system. Of course if you throw enough money at something with a ton of smart people you will get breakthroughs, but in general, it is corrupt, crappy, and only marginally honest.
  - mullen 11y ago
    > IBM, Intel and Google have contributed far more to computer science than academia ever did, and the Internet would have happened either way. I doubt that. The only way that something like the Internet could have been created is if a 'third party' of industry created it, which in this case is academia and DARPA funds. Before the rise of the Internet, there were private paid networks that were restricted and never talked to competing networks. The Internet destroyed those networks and now we get our Internet access (mostly) raw. Also, do you realize that most of the basics and rise of computer science comes out of academia? If a Google or Microsoft could have patiented basic computer tech, they would have, stunting the growth of the field for 50 years or so.
    - javert 11y ago
      > The only way that something like the Internet could have been created is if a 'third party' of industry created it That's not a justified conclusion. If government academics had created airplanes or the internal combusition engine, people would say that was the only way they could have come about. > Also, do you realize that most of the basics and rise of computer science comes out of academia? A lot of the basics of computer science really did come from IBM. > If a Google or Microsoft could have patiented basic computer tech, they would have, stunting the growth of the field for 50 years or so. Patent laws are a government creation, so they're the same basic kind of thing academia is. They are not a fundamental fact about the way human societies and economies work. So we can't take that for granted and then use it as a premise to argue against something else. (I acutally do support certain kinds of patents, though, and the effect of patents is usually the exact opposite of what you say here.)

BukhariH 11y ago

It's not an 'asshole' manoeuvre to pay people more to come work with you. After all those engineers and scientists don't belong to CMU or the NREC.

bedhead 11y ago
Circumstances matter. I suppose if Uber hadn't entered into a partnership first, the whole thing would be more palatable. But by going this route, Uber is sending a clear signal to all potential future partners - watch out. I just find it distasteful, and sadly predictable given Uber's history.

goatforce5 11y ago

Universities may see themselves as holier-than-thou, but it's a reality that they have to offer wages that are in line with industry as a whole. Let's say I want to open a new burger joint and I know there's a really good team in a kitchen down the road. Am I smart or a dick for hiring away that team at double their previous wages?