Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai - <AUTHOR> https://www.blog.google/topics/diversity/note-employees-ceo-sundar-pichai/ <comment><USER2> Quoting Sundar Pichai (Google CEO), emphasis mine:

> At the same time, _there are co-workers who are questioning whether they can > safely express their views in the workplace (especially those with a > minority viewpoint)_. They too feel under threat, and that is also not OK. > People must feel free to express dissent. So to be clear again, many points > raised in the memo—such as the portions criticizing Google's trainings, > questioning the role of ideology in the workplace, and debating whether > programs for women and underserved groups are sufficiently open to all—are > important topics. _The author had a right to express their views on those > topics—we encourage an environment in which people can do this and it > remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these > discussions_.

Good luck with that. You can't take a guy out back and shoot him for speaking his mind, and subsequently expect others do so.

I'm certain Google management knows this as well. They know exactly what they're doing and they're fine with it.

<comment><USER3> Also from the memo:

> _However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the > line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace. Our job is to > build great products for users that make a difference in their lives. To > suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less > biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK. It is contrary to > our basic values and our Code of Conduct, which expects "each Googler to do > their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, > intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination._

He made his continued employment both a social and legal liability. This is a fireable offense even if he was "right".

Also consider this. As part of Google's mandatory diversity training, one is presented with Google's internal research claiming that unconscious bias is real and measurable, and that diversity hiring yields both better individual and group performance. In short, Google feels these programs are scientifically valid. The author claims they aren't, but casually dismisses Google's position without really addressing it. Instead we get an evo-psych Chewbacca defense, phrased in a way that's sure to offend a large number of people. Even if he did that in good faith, it's a colossal mistake _at best_.

<comment><USER4> Would be helpful to know WHICH Code of Conduct he is supposed to have violated.

From glancing over the memo I perceive that: women/man are different and men prefer working in engineering. No need to artificially increase percentage of women engineers with incentives. I did not notice any inferior/superior claims.

Being fired for this polite memo? And being characterized as a kind of toxic outcast? - I'm sorry, what have our society and companies become?

Googlers seem to be allowed to do his/her utmost only within a narrow cage of accepted/mainstream borders.

<comment><USER5> I think the memo made two mistakes here.

The first, from my perspective, is that it crossed a line that you _really_ have to tread with care when it started talking about "biological IQ". Anyone familiar with the sordid history of eugenics knows that you tread that line _really_ carefully, both because of the sordid history of policy on that sort of thing, the extreme difficulty of separating biological vs. environmental constructs for IQ, and the difficulty of creating a single "IQ test" that measures every single aspect of human intelligence. The quote about "IQ and sex differences" (being something the left ignored) was only supported by a link to conservative think tank Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (which said some things about bias in science grants, but didn't really have anything to say about IQ and sex differences).

This is the point where, to me, the memo went downhill. I am not sure it is the intention (possibly the emphasis was intended to be more the politic), but it is very easy to infer inferior / superior claims at this point, because the whole "IQ and sex differences" thing sort of came out of nowhere.

The other reason it went downhill fast, and unnecessarily so, was because the paper brought in "liberal" vs "conservative" American political dynamics elements. BIG mistake. Any discussion along this line needs to be as apolitical as possible, lest it descend rapidly into toxic left-wing vs. right-wing tribalism territory (as, well, happened). Instead of attempting to skirt around politics, loaded phrases were used, particularly at the end of the memo, like "PC authoritarian", and sourced links typically were op-ed, often with strong bias.

I agree that a lot of the memo is more some of the tribal / "role" paradigms and elements that have been discussed in many sources over time, and there's actually some interesting food for thought in it. I'm not terribly comfortable that what I see as poor communication skills led to the firing. I would not characterize this memo as "polite" though, for the above reasons.

<comment><USER6> > is that it crossed a line that you really have to tread with care when it > started talking about "biological IQ".

He mentioned this only briefly (a bracketed clause 5 words long) as an example of science that the left ignores, because there does appear to be a difference in IQ between biological sexes [0], with current research suggesting the _averages_ are similar, however there is a higher variation among males, leading to a higher proportion of men at the very high and very low ends of the spectrum.

His comments on this were in no way used to infer one group was superior or more intelligent than the other. He was just pointing out that the left will ignore or deny science when it conflicts with ideology.

0: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligenc...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligence#Current_research_on_general_intelligence)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I am a black dude from an upper middle class family that went to private school his whole life and I am very, very familiar with how it's possible to have great ethnic diversity but a severe lack of diversity in other areas (and how negatively that can affect things). Because of this I've often wondered how a company or any group of people can include perspectives that many other people find to be morally reprehensible.

Let's say someone at my company holds the opinion that black people are generally too stupid to do tech jobs and they write a memo to the company explaining that opinion. They cite sources that show how blacks underperform academically compared to other ethnic groups and go about it in a really professional way. Should the company just say "well this guy made some good points maybe we should reconsider our diversity programs." Should they tell all the black employees at the company that they should be more open minded to that opinion? As a black guy at that company I would be really unhappy about that and I'd probably quit. I genuinely don't understand how that's supposed to work and would love to hear some suggestions.

<comment><USER8> Did the author really say that women are too stupid? No. He used his words rather carefully. What might have angered some people is his statement that women are more interested in people/relations while men are more interested in things. regardless of whether it's true, and if it is, whether the reasons are inherent or cultural - how is that bad? I can totally understand the author on this as I spent several years training both men and women. They do enjoy solving technical problems, but with time find them boring if left to solve them alone. But let them work in pairs or in groups, give some interaction, and the spark of interest is back. Most guys just didn't care or preferred to do it on their own. I was happy with the performance of both sexes, and to say one is better than the other is really sexist. But to state that they're different? I'm sorry, but we're born this way, there's nothing wrong with it!

<comment><USER7> I'm sorry but your response doesn't really answer my question at all. What I want to hear are some suggestions about how to include people who hold inflammatory opinions in a group that generally doesn't share those opinions.

<comment><USER9> How do you know that the group doesn't generally share those opinions if those opinions are considered "inflammatory" and stating them can be punished. Maybe they're just afraid to speak up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Moral of the story: stupid angry lynch mobs win when they are loud enough to be the majority. It doesn't matter how uninformed the majority viewpoint is.. majority > minority.

There is no debate, only angry people seeing what they want to see. Get angry first, ask questions later (or never) - just people being people.

Googles response is simply to appease both sides as best they can, recognizing that one is the majority. The firing is enough blood to appease the stupid & intolerant, this post is to appease the rest.

<comment><USER11> > _Moral of the story: stupid angry lynch mobs win when they are loud enough > to be the majority. It doesn 't matter how uninformed the majority viewpoint > is.. majority > minority._

The operative phrase being, "loud enough". I.e. loud enough minority looks like majority.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Keep politics/religion out of work. Its one thing to rant on reddit at end of day, its another to broadcast it to co workers. What did he expect would happen? His little write up would change everyones mind? Both left/right are extremists these days and will never change. All you will do is alienate and anger a bunch of co workers for a few pats on back from "your" side. While the smart people will put heads down and get actual work done at work and talk politics at end of day at a bar with friends/family like the rest of the country.

<comment><USER13> There was a political rally in Google Campuses in Feb 2017. So, may be you vanilla comments are generally applicable, Google has sort of exempted itself.

Now some people in Google are creating black-lists of colleagues.

[http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/07/revealed-inside- goo...](http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/07/revealed-inside-googles-sjw- cabal-blacklists/)

<comment><USER14> That is barely credible given the source is Breitbart.

<comment><USER15> An aside note: I have noticed that recently (starting about one year ago) there has been a meme of Breitbart not being a reliable source, while its opposite counterpart Huffington Post does not seem to have this reputation. I wonder if there is a better reason for that than just political disagreement, perhaps there are studies on the relative reliability of different sources (online and offline)? Thanks!

<comment><USER14> Admittedly I have not fact-checked a statistically significant sample of their articles. But their Wikipedia article for instance tells a tale of published falsehoods, conspiracy theories and the like.

The political disagreement is an orthogonal factor, but does play a role, of course.

<comment><USER16> Are you really too lazy to do your own fact checking on a case to case basis instead of relying on these rediculus memes to keep yourself from reading something that might hurt your feel feels?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> There is just no winning in the following chain of arguments:

\- We can debate anything

\- However, some views are too harmful to be debated

\- Whoever is most vocally outraged decides the boundary between open to debate/too harmful

<comment><USER18> The memo itself was incoherent. Many of its statements made sense for debate, and the author himself pointed out that you can't tell much about any individual from the general data, which I think has not been focused on enough. He seemed to think he was doing everybody a service and that his views were not detrimental to anybody. But the actual choices in how to express the generalities showed really bad judgement and overall apparently ran afoul of the code of conduct. People are definitely putting words in his mouth, but at the same time: An incoherent companywide memo is not the best way to start a debate on a sensitive topic. You might not instantly fire this person if he had chosen a way to express his ideas that didn't burn bridges with half the people who work there, if not more. This was not just "debate", it was maybe 80% debate and 20% attack on the credibility of all women in traditionally male professions. If he did not mean it come across that way, which I believe might be the case, then I feel sorry for him. And maybe he should have the opportunity to edit the memo to better reflect the debate he intended. But that's on him. He chose how to do this and what words to use.

<comment><USER19> Have you read the memo? It's coherent. People just don't like what it says. Please read this article which includes responses to the memo from four scientists who study the subject matter: [http://archive.is/z6xxP](http://archive.is/z6xxP)

> The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity gets nearly > all of the science and its implications exactly right. [...] This essay may > not get everything 100% right, but it is certainly not a rant. And it stands > in sharp contrast to most of the comments, which are little more than snarky > modern slurs. The arrogance of most of the comments reflects exactly the > type of smug self-appointed superiority that has led to widespread > resentment of the left among reasonable people. To the extent that such > views correspond to those at Google, they vindicate the essayist's claims > about the authoritarian and repressive atmosphere there. Even the response > by Google's new VP in charge of diversity simply ignores all of the author's > arguments, and vacuously affirms Google's commitment to diversity. The essay > is vastly more thoughtful, linked to the science, and well-reasoned than > nearly all of the comments. (Lee Jussim, professor of social psychology at > Rutgers University)

> For what it's worth, I think that almost all of the Google memo's empirical > claims are scientifically accurate. Moreover, they are stated quite > carefully and dispassionately. Its key claims about sex differences are > especially well-supported by large volumes of research across species, > cultures, and history. I know a little about sex differences research. On > the topic of evolution and human sexuality, I've taught for 28 years, > written 4 books and over 100 academic publications, given 190 talks, > reviewed papers for over 50 journals, and mentored 11 Ph.D. students. > Whoever the memo's author is, he has obviously read a fair amount about > these topics. Graded fairly, his memo would get at least an A- in any > masters' level psychology course. It is consistent with the scientific state > of the art on sex differences. (Blank slate gender feminism is advocacy > rather than science: no gender feminist I've met has ever been able to give > a coherent answer to the question 'What empirical findings would convince > you that psychological sex differences evolved?') (Geoffrey Miller, > evolutionary psychology professor at University of New Mexico)

If you have read the memo and found it incoherent, then please explain what part of it is incoherent. Here are some of the points made in its summary:

> [S]ilencing [people who disagree] has created an ideological echo chamber > where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.

> Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part > explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and > leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, > divisive, and bad for business.

Do you find those points incoherent? I find them to be clear. ("incoherent: expressed in an incomprehensible or confusing way; unclear.")

<comment><USER18> Thanks for the link to the article... it'll take me a little bit of time to get into the detail. But, the second scientist in the article says the following:

>But it is not clear to me how such sex differences are relevant to the Google workplace. And even if sex differences in negative emotionality were relevant to occupational performance (e.g., not being able to handle stressful assignments), the size of these negative emotion sex differences is not very large (typically, ranging between "small" to "moderate" in statistical effect size terminology; accounting for less than 10% of the variance). So, using someone's biological sex to essentialize an entire group of people's personality would be like operating with an axe.

I would argue that even if he didn't mean to, "using someone's biological sex to essentialize an entire group of people's personality" is the message he gave to many people. I do believe his argument is more complex than that, but it's not sufficiently accounting for this impression.

I'll continue reading. In the meantime, asking if I read the memo and showing me the definition of "incoherent" ... can we please have a respectful discussion? I'm happy to explain why I find the memo, as a whole, incoherent, with examples.

(Edit: changed "first" to "second" scientist)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> > The past few days have been very difficult for many at the company, and we > need to find a way to debate issues on which we might disagree

...So we've fired the person starting the debate? Am I missing something here?

<comment><USER21> As the note basically says; starting a debate does not excuse you from suggesting that some of your co-workers are there because of a "lowered bar", your evidence being psuedo-scientific bullshit about the tech-skill distribution among minorities and women.

<comment><USER22> What can Google or any other company do to hire more from one group (example, women) other then by making it easier (lowering the bar) for those groups to be hired?

<comment><USER21> Other work Google has done to attract engineers from underrepresented groups is reaching out to women and minorities with tech skills and make them interested in working there. Since they still need to pass the same hiring practices, and the same continuous fitness evaluation, we have evidence that these engineers from underrepresented groups do measure up to the task.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> By firing the employee, Google is sending a strong signal that they will not tolerate a diversity of opinions.

That does not bode well for them, for a restrictive intellectual environment is anathema to the kind of intelligent people they want to hire to keep the company competitive.

<comment><USER24> _a restrictive intellectual environment is anathema to the kind of intelligent people they want to hire to keep the company competitive_

So what? This action _might_ be damaging to Google's bottom line (I doubt it) but that's actually less important that running a company in the way the overwhelming majority of employees want it to be run.

To use an ad absurdum argument - if it could be demonstrated that people who are openly racist write better code I still wouldn't believe Google should hire them.

<comment><USER23> I've already covered the "So what?". I explained what I think the consequences are likely to be, and why I think that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Frankly, the CEO has more problems than this memo. Breitbart has been a garbage fire for a while, but if the screen shots and messages in the article[1] aren't fake then Google is going to have some problems. This is really not the thing you want going on when you already have a government labor investigation underway. I wish anyone impacted luck.

1) [http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/07/revealed-inside- goo...](http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/07/revealed-inside-googles-sjw- cabal-blacklists/)

<comment><USER26> > if the screen shots and messages in the article[1] aren't fake

You could share your thoughts on this rather than making a clickbait comment.

<comment><USER25> I did share my thoughts (CEO has other problems, good luck to people impacted), and HN doesn't allow posting images so I posted a link to the article. Inc. Magazine [https://www.inc.com/sonya-mann/google-manifesto- blacklists.h...](https://www.inc.com/sonya-mann/google-manifesto- blacklists.html) looks like they are verifying them although they did not print any.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> k-mcgrady This thread seems to be a perfect demonstration of the problems when it comes to diversity in tech. People just don't seem to get it. I see the same thing in threads around big SV names sexually harassing women (and in those cases it blows my mind even more that people don't get that it's a problem).

It seems like a lot of people are basing their opinions on logic (fine) but in a perfect world where everyone has equal opportunity, we live in a meritocracy, and people are judged solely on performance. Unfortunately none of those things are true and we need to manipulate things manually to ensure people are given equal opportunity.

<comment> hidden-markov This thread feels like a Breitbart comment section.

<comment><USER27> That's a nice tactic for discounting people's thoughtful opinions. Cognitive dissonance resolved!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> To Sundar Pichai:

How could someone express the views the author felt without getting fired, while still promoting discussion?

Is it _possible_ , just _possible_ , that Google's policies are counterproductive? If so, how would Google find out? By what process could someone change them?

If such processes exist, why would someone the company valued enough to hire risk his job to send this memo?

Is it _possible_ that Google's environment does not accept some minority viewpoints despite your beliefs and attempts?

<comment><USER29> This precisely. It's a pity they'll never be specific in addressing exactly how these points could have been raised without sanction. As admitted, the (former) employee clearly felt the discussion was worth starting - why won't they provide concrete examples of how they would be preferred the issues be raised in this case? (It's a rhetorical question; of course, we know why they won't and can't do that.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> This is definitely _the_ best response to the memo that I've read. He clearly says which parts of the "manifesto" are an acceptable expression of opinion in the workplace and which aren't. I am very relieved that he didn't jump on the bashing bandwagon and dismissed the memo as a whole just because it contained some questionable and inappropriate parts.

This makes it very credible that he's actually read the whole thing and thought about it. Something that I miss dearly with 99% of the other discussion contributers (e.g. [1] which is IMO just hate speech of a worse kind than the memo it responds to).

I really thought I wouldn't write this but kudos and thanks to Sundar for such a balanced and well thought-out response.

[1] [https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers- man...](https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers- manifesto-1e3773ed1788)

</comment><comment><USER31> Wow, I'm surprised to see the comments here being hateful towards this statement. I don't think it's contradictory at all. The stance he takes is that any subject is up for debate, so long as you don't step out of line with respect to the code of conduct. The guy who was fired was way out of line, far beyond any reasonable limits to topics of discussion. Even as a particularly opinionated person myself, who would be likely to start a lot of shit at Google - even about diversity, I consider these limitations just.

<comment><USER32> Not saying Google has to uphold everyone's 1A rights. Not saying dude who wrote the essay is correct either. But it's a lie to say Google's culture supports free speech when the cost of that speech is compliance with the tyranny of a Code of Conduct.

<comment><USER18> >But it's a lie to say Google's culture supports free speech when the cost of that speech is compliance with the tyranny of a Code of Conduct.

I think people often expect 'free speech' in situations where I wouldn't. Like a collaborative working environment where you are all professionals trying to get work done. There is a subset of speech (so no longer 'free') that is appropriate for working professionally with a group, especially a group from widely diverse backgrounds. The exact boundaries change over time and between environments, but the idea of employers setting a baseline set of elections expectations inherently limits speech. Google supports speech within limits, and a person who gets that could probably have navigated the politics of talking about the legitimate issues in the memo without crossing that line. Working together in companies is weird. Codes of Conduct attempt to standardize expectations so that work can get done. Work is a special place.

<comment><USER33> Your argument seems to be that in an work environment opinions should be kept to one's self. Would that apply only to Republicans or to Democrats as well?

It is an utopia to pretend that the workplace should be opinion-free. Especially since the workplace on purpose tries to blur the lines between personal and professional lives: dorms on campus, cafeteria, malls and dry- cleaning amenities on campus.

If that's the direction business are going towards to then it is normal to accept that the employee comes with opinions attached.

<comment><USER18> Generally I think people who are basically compelled to spend time together should use company policies, and their own judgement, to figure out what's professionally acceptable in context and work in reference to that. I don't agree with how home/work lines are often blurred and I see nothing wrong with opinions being shared at work, except the naive expectation that one has the right to say anything at all and, if it's "just an opinion", experience no consequences. It's just basic professionalism. In the real world outside of work, people can express all ranges of opinions (well, most), and others can choose to react, or not. Others can even choose to just not deal with you if they don't like your opinion (again, mostly). At work, you have a complicated long term contractual and financial relationship to the employer and other employees. It's appropriate for people to come into that with some self awareness and caution about what to say, and to whom.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> This whole thing to me is a great example of why the "Facts don't care about feels" crowd is so disingenuous. Supporters of the memo writer talk about how scientific and logical he was being, yet he draws lines that are not supported by science at all. We barely know what things contribute to success of software teams at all, let alone the implications of evopsych biotruths on them. And all this pseudo-scientific reaching is for the grand purpose of saying current employees who came to the company maybe from outreach programs shouldn't have been reached out to. Which, objectively and logically, is a dead-stupid thing to argue in an internal company-wide memo.

</comment><comment><USER35> SV has had major problems sheltering people in leadership who have used their positions to sexually exploit their female subordinates. Yet a mid level engineer publicly questions some of the company's diversity policies and gets fired. Many of publicly stated reasons about women leaving tech is predatory behavior by people in leadership. How about initiatives about getting rid of individuals like that.

</comment><comment><USER36> Let's break down the reality of this situation as it currently stands:

1) You can't say what you want at work, period (there are no first amendment protections at work, just from the government). The person who posted the memo was naive and this memo from the CEO is corporate bullspeak to look good for outside PR. That's all this is, and if you take it for anything more you're also naive. For all intents and purposes it means nothing.

2) The company might be trying to make women feel more welcome by having the statement from the new diversity officer and the CEO, but I can tell you as a woman the LAST place I'd want to get a job right now is Google -- everyone is going to look at you like you only got your job because you're female; it's going to be extremely hard to get people to take you seriously. That's why, if you're going to hire only for diversity (not that I recommend it), do it in silence, don't tell the world, as it only backfires against those same employees you're bringing in.

3) If Google really wanted to get more females and minorities in its rank it should be looking at why it focuses so highly on only top rank schools (IF TRUE: MAY NOT BE-- SEE DISCUSSION BELOW) -- there's plenty of great, smart people constantly overlooked by Google because they can't see past their own biases in this area, which some would argue is a bigger barrier to diversity at Google than straight hiring by gender and race alone.

<comment><USER37> Only going to reply to your last point, this isn't my experience at all with Google. I work in SV, and get contacted by an internal recruiter at Google a couple times a year. What school did I go to? None. Ok, I have a certificate from the Defense Language Institute, but no degree. So I'm not sure this is a problem.

<comment><USER36> And you may be absolutely right -- I'm going off what I've heard from young people anecdotally out of college who say they weren't given a second look because they weren't from MIT or Cal Tech. But perhaps that's only for entry- level positions, or perhaps my information is just plain wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> This is the moment. Google used to be this dream place to work, not anymore. If other companies want to hire good conservative/libertarian engineers, they should motion loud and clear that they will not ostracize employees for having a differing political opinion

<comment><USER39> The truth is, in most states, you can be fired for holding any opinion your boss doesn't like. Full stop.

<comment><USER40> But California is not one of those states. See [http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection...](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=1101)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> The first thought that came to mind for me, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

</comment><comment><USER42> When you insinuate that some of your co-workers have certain drawbacks because of their gender, it makes that particular gender all the more aware of their behaviour and they are put in a position where they to take extra effort to prove otherwise. This is creating hostile environment for them. This is the reason why similar forms of generalisation, like racism, is frowned upon – not just because of innate sense of right or wrong.

Being white male, I bet most of us would never have faced any significant discrimination and please stop pretending that we know how other side feels.

Some people are suggesting Google's stance on LGBT is alienating people - Really? So, people who advocate taking away LGBT people's rights and opposed to their ways of life are complaining of persecution?

</comment><comment><USER43> A lot of comments already misunderstanding the excellent response by Sundar Pichai in the article.

You obviously can't say anything you like at work.

Google is offering diversity of opinion but there are things you can say that are just stupid and will get you fired.

If you replace women in his essay with African American there would have been about 1 second between it being posted and it being taken down, with an escort out of the building and rightly so.

I loved this talk from Sheryl Sandberg that touches on a lot of these issues, particularly the "joke" near the end, 39 minutes:

[https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/sheryl-sandberg- develo...](https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/sheryl-sandberg-develop-your- voice-not-your-brand)

</comment><comment><USER44> Government regulation is actually the culprit here.

Google is being sued by the Department of Labor for violating a gender discrimination regulation: [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google- pa...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-pay- disparities-women-labor-department-lawsuit)

Google's response is driven by this lawsuit. They have antitrust regulations on one side, discrimination regulations on the other. Sundar is aware that the government could sue Google out of business.

</comment><comment><USER45> A "Note to Google Employees" on a public site.

Seems legit.

<comment><USER46> As you might have noticed the debate did not involve Google employees exclusively. It is of them that he is CEO, though. It would be quite megalomaniac to title it "To all ye of this planet, listen to me!"

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> For those who, like me, missed the news that Google fired the author of the original memo, here's the HN discussion around that: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14952787](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14952787)

</comment><comment><USER42> Any one even remotely thinks that the memo was right should read this : [https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers- man...](https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers- manifesto-1e3773ed1788) There are some good points in the memo - like having training and support for men, but it was largely an exercise in casting doubt on the ability of certain subset of your co-workers to do their job.

</comment><comment><USER33> Full, unedited document. Gizmodo did a hatchet job ar taking charts and links out. People should read it and then apply reason to it. Difficult when we get into cult-like mob mentality.

James Damore document: [[https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo- uncenso...](https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-uncensored- memo-with-charts-and-cites-339f3d2d05f)]

</comment><comment><USER48> Outside the Bay Area bubble, this is _extremely_ damaging to Google's image.

</comment><comment><USER49> The real issue is how much a corporation can enforce "correct" opinions among it's employees. This was an internal company forum. He expressed opinions that deviated from company policy (and from the sounds of it a lot of other employees at Google disagreed as well) and a lively debated ensued. OK that what sounds like a healthy thing to have happen and get ideas out there and agreed upon or shot down. However by firing him that sends a very clear message that any deviation from the norm will not be tolerated. That's not diversity, that is an attempt at moral conformity.

</comment><comment><USER9> We have this thing called diversity policies, and some people agree with it, and some people disagree with it. The people who agree with it are free to present arguments about why workplaces are discriminatory and why diversity is valuable.

But with this - I'm starting to wonder if the same is true for the other side. Are people free to post counter arguments showing that lack of diversity may be due to other factors such as difference in behaviour or tendencies? It doesn't appear that way.

</comment><comment><USER50> When I worked at Google I saw far worse things being said about those who held conservative opinions on Memegen and eng-misc. The real issue is not that he expressed opinions that could be constituted as harassment, that happens all the time at Google, the only problem is that he dared to hold the "wrong" opinion, counter to the dominant culture.

</comment><comment><USER51> He's basically saying the same thing that got Larry Summers axed as president of Harvard.

        [...] stomped Harvard University President Lawrence Summers for
        mentioning at a January 14 academic conference the entirely reasonable
        theory that innate male-female differences might possibly help explain
        why so many mathematics, engineering, and hard-science faculties
        remain so heavily male.

At least this guy is in good company.

[https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/02/why- fem...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/02/why-feminist- careerists-neutered-larry-summers/303795/)

</comment><comment><USER52> OMG, Cancelling his vacation? what message about work-life balance is the CEO sending? ;^)

<comment><USER29> Actually, you may be joking but in all seriousness what message indeed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> I wonder about the internal workings of Google here; did he (Sundar Pichai) actually ok'ed the firing of the memo author?

Is this text actually written by him or is it by some HR/communications person? It seems very coded and indirect.

</comment><comment><USER16> > we strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves

By fireing them? Really?!

I see a lot of criticism from people who didn't read the memo. Most people just fall for the sensationalist headlines of "OMG GOOGLE RELEASED ANTI-WOMEN MEMO REEE".

The memo wasn't that bad. It tries to highlight some very real problems in this age of intersectional recruitment.

</comment><comment><USER54> The whole "across cultures" thing in that 1 (importantly, __one __) study is easily explained by a couple things:

\- men grow more muscle faster and that used to be important

\- childbirth used to be (and in many places still is) very dangerous for women

Consequently most societies defined gender roles in similar ways, leading to similar effects across them.

Or you can go even simpler and say they're more neurotic because their odds of being raped by a man are terrifyingly high. Or they get paid less than men and charged more for things like health care, car loans and mortgages so they carry a higher financial stress burden. Or their health plans are inadequate and they're worried about what will happen if that matters. Or they're being harassed in the workplace.

Or you can dispute the premise entirely and say the standard for "neuroticism" was based on a culture created and still dominated by men.

\---

A lot of people are saying things like, "he didn't really write anything that was sexist or misogynistic", but women and people of color are far too familiar with fucked up policies justified by "biological differences". There are real, deep, life and death social problems right now caused by misogyny and they all stem from the fundamental idea that women have their role and men have theirs.

What does this lead to? Health care policies that cost women more and don't even meet all their needs. Health care systems that service women less effectively than men (stroke symptoms are often missed in women, childbirth mortality rates in less progressive parts of the US, etc.), jobs that pay women less than men, laws that ignore or oppress women, etc. etc. etc. etc. And every time, it's justified with "women are just biologically different than men".

Why can't you express such an opinion in the workplace? Because that opinion is responsible for the oppression of billions of women throughout the entire history of humanity. It's not at all like arguing for wind over solar, or honestly other political debates over private vs. public health care or whatever. When you're talking about social issues, you're talking about systems that have oppressed, brutalized and murdered unbelievable numbers of people, and continue to oppress people that you work with and see each and every day. They're not idle thought experiments or a curious hobbies. Treat them with the sensitivity they deserve.

</comment><comment><USER55> This is the chilliest I've yet felt the chilling effect.

</comment><comment><USER56> What a bummer. This could have been "Kubernetes for organizations", how to manage diverse sets of containers-of-emotions/talents in a scalable fashion. There is so little nuance and quality thinking around this topic inside most organizations and Google could have done the community a great service by elevating and firmly grounding the discussion. And I think there are great discussions to be had that would lead to tech workers understanding and desiring diversity for _actual reasons_ and not for PC/BS reasons.

But now no one will raise the topic.

</comment><comment><USER57> _At the same time, there are co-workers who are questioning whether they can safely express their views in the workplace (especially those with a minority viewpoint)_

Define "safely" and maybe you can express your viewpoint. The good news is that Google ain't gonna shoot you after a 15 minute trial (including appeals) but you'll get fired and blackballed. (Google could at least give this guy FU money with a wink and a nod.)

No company will hire you after rocking the boat....things have already been decided by those who scream loudest. WTF are you to question them now?

</comment><comment><USER58> > Aug 8, 2017

> This note was sent to Google employees this evening. -Ed.

I'm reading a note from the future. Incredible!

</comment><comment><USER59> This site so janky on iOS.

</comment><comment><USER60> Let a thousand flowers bloom.

<comment><USER61> (In case someone missed the reference: this is a comparison to Mao's Hundred Flowers campaign, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign). People were spurred to speak their minds freely, but, after a few years, punished for dissenting.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> "The author had a right to express their views on those topics—we encourage an environment in which people can do this and it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions."

Maybe he missed the memo that the author has been fired? How is that encouraging for people with unpopular opinions?

<comment><USER63> Federal and California law protect your ability to discuss labor issues in the workplace -- this is CYA.

See: [https://www.recode.net/2016/6/2/11845456/nest-google- witchhu...](https://www.recode.net/2016/6/2/11845456/nest-google-witchhunt)

(The outcome of the above story: the employee was _rehired_!)

<comment><USER64> Now that would be hilarious.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> Know this, I'm cancelling my holiday just to show you and more importantly my manager exactly how serious this is. Just to reiterate, you've all made me cancel my holiday, you bad, me good.

</comment><comment><USER66> Interesting. Was this submission kicked off the front page? I can't find it anymore except by using the search.

<comment><USER67> It triggered the overheated discussion detector, which we've just turned off.

<comment><USER68> Idea: overheated discussion detector could probably run more efficiently the next few weeks by replacing the implementation with 'cat thread.xml | grep Google | grep -v technology'

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> Completely predictable. And I'm amused that the alt-right is currently flipping their shit over "PC nonsense" and calling for #boycottgoogle

And this dumb bro thinks he has a legal case.

I'm also amused with the pro-business anti-government types are the first to go wailing to the government for intervention on behalf of their first amendment rights _which do not apply to an employer_.

</comment><comment><USER70> A little off-topic but if you care about your employees, please make all salary and compensation information for any employee available to all employees (preferably make it public). Someone has to start doing the right thing.

</comment><comment><USER71> I think this is a very good step in positive direction that the CEO is addressing the issue in public. Independent of whether I agree or disagree with the decision, I commend the blog.

<comment><USER72> I think it reads like typical corporate CYA double-speak, the opposite of brave leadership.</comment></comment>


3D Self-Replicating Printer to be Released Under GNU License - <AUTHOR> http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/tech/2F5C3C5D68A380EDCC257423006E71CD <comment><USER2> At my dad's work (Rocketdyne-owned by Pratt&Whitney, used to be owned by Boeing, makes engines for space craft), they have several large rapid prototypers that are used to create prototypes for different designs to test, and they even make an air duct used in F/A 18s.

They're really fun, but what they can create is rather limited from my understanding. They can do very intricate designs (even objects within objects, like a triangle INSIDE of a complete sphere), but only out of certain plastics, and only one material at a time, so the usefulness is limited. You couldn't build an engine block with it, because it can't work with the metals.

<comment><USER3> > can't work with the metals

There was an article in Make Magazine about the RepRap and it works with metals which have a low melting point, such as Field's metal ( <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field's_metal> ). This allows the RepRap to include wiring. Additionally, the machine can pause to allow electronic components to be inserted.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> i keep waiting for these personal fabrication things to get popular and cheap so i can design my own coffee warmer

</comment><comment><USER5> A self replicating machine, this brings to mind Terminator and AI taking over the world.</comment>


Ask HN: Tools to do GIF screen recording - <AUTHOR> I'm on Mac, and it's been a while since I tried it. Just trying it out with the built-in screen record + iMovie produces ~500Mb for 2min video, and no easy way to make a Git from it. Is there a tool to produce a reasonable size (shareable) Gif from screen record? Ideally with some simple things like trim, zoom in, speed adjust, etc. <comment><USER2> My experience with GIF animations is that video recording almost always a much more efficient way to record the screen. Like, orders of magnitude.

There's a reason why sites like GIFfy will actually convert GIFs to video files for recording and display, resulting in 10x to 100x smaller files.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't use it, but Cleanshot X can do this - [https://cleanshot.com/](https://cleanshot.com/)</comment>


Trippy images were designed by AI to super-stimulate monkey neurons - <AUTHOR> https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-05-trippy-images-ai-super-stimulate-monkey.html <comment><USER2> JFC. This thing is a monkey nightmare machine.

[https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hire...](https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hires/2019/2-thesetrippyi.jpg)

For sure, those are very likely images of fear. If you wanna call them "highly stimulating" well... That's probably not untrue.

But the only thing that the monkey is likely finding "stimulating" about familiar people in surgical masks is an association with pain and terror. Note the odd expressionless faces standing over them, holding utensils.

Pretty god damned ominous. Not at all images one might call fun.

<comment><USER3> You seem to be anthropomorphizing the neuron. This work is pretty innovative: We've used this technique to generate similar images of computer neural networks to try to figure out what a given neuron or layer is actually learning: [http://yosinski.com/deepvis](http://yosinski.com/deepvis)

Now, we're monitoring a _biological_ neuron with the same technique, and _coming up with similar feature selection_. That both validates the approach we've been taking with deep neural networks, AND it provides us heretofore- unimaginable access to individual neuronal activation materials.

Exciting stuff!

<comment><USER4> > You seem to be anthropomorphizing the neuron.

And respectfully, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the neuron is part of a living sentient creature.

That comment epitomizes the cliche of an engineer/scientist so excited by the technology that they are completely blind to its real world implications.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > _To find out which sights specific neurons in monkeys "like" best, > researchers designed an algorithm, called XDREAM, that generated images that > made neurons fire more than any natural images the researchers tested._

I know they put "like" in quotes, but damn. Imagine this from a scifi angle:

> _" The aliens from Tau Ceti found which stimuli specific humans "like" best > by trying them out and seeing which ones made humans scream the most._

<comment><USER6> Fortunately the brain has astounding plasticity. It it's only images, we would get used to them.

<comment><USER7> Try telling that to those who do content review for YouTube, Facebook, etc. People have suffered PTSD from jobs like that.

Saying it's just images isn't saying anything at all. Mental harm is just as real as bodily harm, even if it is harder to examine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Remember when it was becoming increasingly difficult to tell the difference between real headlines and Onion headlines? Well, now it's becoming harder to tell the difference between reality and SCP Foundation logs.

</comment><comment><USER9> I was afraid of this when I saw the headline, because it means we are finally at risk developing a Parrot attack. If it's not apparent yet why digital displays need anti-seizure filters in hardware before it's too late for humankind, read this and be very afraid:

[http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/blit.htm](http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/blit.htm)

</comment><comment><USER10> This is sick. I can't believe as human beings we still do this to other conscious creatures with feelings. It's emotionally traumatizing.

It's wrong.

<comment><USER11> I'm not sure you are interpreting this correctly - its not like they were torturing the monkey.

This is almost the same as studies where they show humans a set of images and ask them which they like the most. Except in this case, they just show them the images and try to _measure_ it.

Most of these comments are blowing this out of proportion.

<comment><USER12> Subjecting a being to a machine which automatically evolves stimuli to maximise fear response is not torture?

<comment><USER13> It's not maximizing "fear response", I'm not sure where everyone in this thread is getting that from. It's maximizing the response of particular visual cortex neurons, in structures where they're shown to be recognizers of specific shapes or concepts.

I.e. it's evolving images that this neuron thinks look most like a monkey, or a person. It's not the only neuron making that judgment, and it's all super nonlinear, so ofc it looks strange and distorted.

It's literally just doing this but with a real neuron instead of a virtual one: [http://yosinski.com/deepvis](http://yosinski.com/deepvis)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> How do all the commenters here know that the images are eliciting a fear response? The referenced study measures firing rates of visual neurons. It does not discuss ultimate emotional reactions.

</comment><comment><USER15> This paper pretty closely resembles one that I saw a few months ago: Neural Population Control via Deep Image Synthesis: [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/461525v1](https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/461525v1), which is included among the first few references. They do quite a bit of building off of it, but some of the images in the full paper are definitely as uncanny to look at as the ones included in the article about it above.

</comment><comment><USER16> I wonder how this technique could be used to develop specific-person optimized user interfaces. Of course, it'll probably be first used in ad-tech.

<comment><USER5> "I will buy whatever you're selling to make this stimulus stop, please."

<comment><USER17> _Resume viewing. Resume viewing._

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Why was this study done on monkeys instead of apes (closer to humans) or mice (cheaper)?

</comment><comment><USER11> I wonder if there are more 'universal' images that would be able to have the same effect across populations?

I could imagine this type of thing going in art galleries, evoking different tailored emotions.

<comment><USER19> That would be an interesting application. I assume first we'll see it used in advertising though. More money and looser morals there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I find this both disturbing and fascinating from the perspective that this is essentially an attempt at developing a saliency map of a living organism... so instead of XAI it would be XI?</comment>


Ask HN: Backup iPhone directly to USB drive? - <AUTHOR> So my wife's Iphone is filled up with videos and photos of the kids.   I need to back this up, and I would ideally like to put the photos and video on a usb drive.<p>My MBP would not have enough space to take on all the extra files, so I am curious if anyone has solved this problem? <comment><USER2> Move your iTunes library to an external drive, and point iTunes to it. There are many tutorials on how to do this exactly, e.g. [https://blog.macsales.com/43972-how-to-move-your-itunes- libr...](https://blog.macsales.com/43972-how-to-move-your-itunes-library-to- an-external-drive/)

You could do this for a single account (e.g. your wife's account).

<comment><USER3> Know that you can spend $50-75 and get a 1TB 2.5" external drive, or ~$100-150 for a larger 4-6TB 3.5" drive, but if you've got several computers at home, a NAS is really convenient, as it lets your files be wirelessly available on all your computers.

I've had a number of my beta users ask how to safely store stuff, so I wrote this up: [https://photostructure.com/faq/how-do-i-safely-store- files/](https://photostructure.com/faq/how-do-i-safely-store-files/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Would this work?

[https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.imore.com/how-use- externa...](https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.imore.com/how-use-external- hard-drives-your-iphone-or-ipad%3famp)

Was planning on trying it out myself. Have the same issue as you.

</comment><comment><USER5> If you are not cloud averse you could upload the files automatically by installing onedrive, dropbox or google photos.</comment>


FreedomPop spams my contacts for 8 months and won't stop - <AUTHOR> http://pushingproduct.co/post/52162734382/traction-at-all-cost-freedompop-spams-my-contacts-for <comment><USER2> I put in my zip code on their web site to see if they had coverage. They force you to enter your email address as well and they make sure it's a valid domain.

After I entered my zip code and (fake) email address it told me that they needed my physical address to determine if they had coverage for me at my exact address. Thinking they had coverage in my zip code, I entered a real (but not my) address. Then they immediately said that coverage was not available at my address and to look at their map for more coverage details.

Looking at their map, it looks like coverage is not within 500 miles of any part of my zip code. I guess this is just another part of their gathering of personal information for making a simple inquiry.

<comment><USER3> You can use the coverage checker at <http://www.clear.com/coverage>, no e-mail gathering necessary.

FreedomPop uses Clearwire for the data.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Never trust ANYBODY who requires a valid email address just to check if their service is available in location. Zip code alone will suffice. If they are OK with harvesting your email address (for spamming purposes I presume), what makes you think they have any scruples against spamming everyone.

</comment><comment><USER5> For extra entertainment, have a look at their privacy policy, it is amazingly broad and brazen in what they reserve the right to do with your data.

</comment><comment><USER6> Their customer support is horrible. I accidentally signed up for their paid service. When I saw them charging my credi card, I asked their customer support to cancel my subscription.

Two months later, I was still being billed. I ended up calling my bank and telling them to block all charges.

<comment><USER7> this.

I had a horrible experience with them charging me when I signed up for a free service... took forever for them to get back to me, couldn't get the service to work often (not a coverage problem, they set something wrong on my account).. overall, not a well run business.

Good premise.. they just really need to iron out some things first in my opinion.

<comment><USER8> Where is this free service? I just clicked through it with a fake email address and whether I chose Home or mobile, they always forced to sell a device, the cheapest was $39. Is there anything really free here?

They were pretty annoying with checking email addresses BTW.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Anyone else experienced a service doing this?

<comment><USER9> Path</comment></comment>


Call for the Resignation of FCC Chairman Ajit Varadaraj Pai - <AUTHOR> https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/we-people-call-resignation-fcc-chairman-ajit-varadaraj-pai <comment><USER2> We're all aware that this is an action being taken by the executive branch, not the legislative. However, Executive departments rely on the legislative branch to get relevant legislation passed, to confirm appointees, and for other forms of support for their actions. Administrative departments generally try to avoid angering the relevant standing committees that regulate them.

The website for the US Senate subcomittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation, and the Internet is here [https://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/communicati...](https://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/communicationstechnologyandtheinternet)

There appear to be two relevant subcommittees of the US House of Representatives:

[https://energycommerce.house.gov/subcommittee/communications...](https://energycommerce.house.gov/subcommittee/communications- and-technology/)

and

[https://energycommerce.house.gov/subcommittee/digital- commer...](https://energycommerce.house.gov/subcommittee/digital-commerce-and- consumer-protection/)

From the looks of the twitter iframes* on both house subcomittee pages, the FCC has significant legislative support for these rules changes.

<comment><USER3> That's really not true, there was a bipartisan push to pull this power away from the FCC specifically because members of both parties saw net neutrality becoming a political football. And that the regulatory uncertainty of back- and-forth, regulation and deregulation, on a 4 year basis, was going to ultimately be more damaging than going one way or the other.

[http://thehill.com/policy/technology/341605-senate- republica...](http://thehill.com/policy/technology/341605-senate-republican- we-need-bipartisan-net-neutrality-legislation)

Which died primarily due to inaction caused by the republican members of Congress chasing long shot bills and wasting productive time for unproductive time.

<comment><USER4> This is a great point. Congress is abdicating its responsibility to enact proper legislation and allowing this issue to be decided by the whims of whatever the executive branch wants (which is subject to change every 4 years). We need certainty with regards to this issue, and this is not the only example of congress abdicating its responsibilities (war, healthcare, immigration, etc.).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Where the hell are Google and Facebook on this? The idea that they'll profit from the repeal is simply naive - without net neutrality Comcast et al will be able to extort whatever they want from SV. I realize that this is unethical, but Alphabet alone can match ISP donations and then some. Alphabet plus Facebook can probably buy post Citizens United Congress fifty times over.

<comment><USER6> I am surprised that they fought for net neutrality at all in the past. The primary threats to their businesses are new companies, and barriers to entry are their best protections. Having money skimmed by companies like Comcast is far better than being replaced by a better search engine or a new social network. Right now it is much easier to implement an idea and scale it than it would be if you began also having to finance new extortion fees before you even had a chance to validate your idea.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Signed... thanks for the link.

I don't think this administration has much interest in what "we the people" really want, though.

Hopefully people call their reps to voice concerns about the repeal of NN too.

<comment><USER8> s/this/any/g

<comment><USER3> If you haven't been able to see the tangible ways that one party is way more beholden to monied interests by this point, I don't know what it will take.

Some people just want to watch the word burn.

<comment><USER9> What you may not see is both parties playing people against one another. They're both completely beholden to special interests. As perhaps the most visible example, did you ever wonder why the TPP, which was going to be arguably the single biggest corporate handout in US legislative history, was being spearheaded by Obama? Or why he was going about it in such an absurdly undemocratic fashion?

Keeping the people divided is the key to keeping the establishment powers entrenched in office. So long as the people _hate_ the alternative sufficiently, they need not worry about the quality of their own candidate. Clinton won the popular vote, yet I think it's safe to say that most voted for her not because she truly was the type of candidate that people wanted in office -- but because the alternative was considered absolutely unacceptable under any circumstance. And the same is no doubt true of much of Trump's support.

I don't think another Ross Perot 1992 is ever likely to happen. If that's before your political period, an independent individual ( _vastly more eloquent and reasonable, but politically similar to Trump_ ) ended up making a huge run. At one point he was actually ahead in the polls against candidates from both parties. In the general he ran against Bush and Clinton, even then some of the most powerful names in politics. He pulled 19% of the vote - destroying Bush's incumbency and effectively giving the presidency to Clinton.

But far from just a spoiler, that's a single outsider independently threatening to 'take over' Washington. The increasingly sensationalized and divisive rhetoric with a focus on identity politics, really began to spike in the elections to come. So long as both side of the political spectrum think those on the other side are completely intolerable, it makes it much easier to control people. You can even get them to do things like vote for people they don't actually want in office -- they just need to be convinced that it's better than the alternative.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Who seriously believes it would make a difference? As the Chairman is just a puppet and will if resigned be replaced by another. The USA is not a functioning democracy anymore and you should aim at replacing your complete government and the rules how it's elected.

<comment><USER11> _The USA is not a functioning democracy_

Thank goodness too! We are a Constitutional Republic. A pure democracy only works when the majority is moral.

<comment><USER12> Oh for Christ's sake, pedantry is even more annoying _when it's not even correct_. Just Google the definition of "democracy" before the next time you think it's a good idea to interject this trite, useless comment. Here, I'll get you started:

""" noun

\- a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

\- a state governed by a democracy.

\- control of an organization or group by the majority of its members. """

The term you're thinking of is "direct democracy".

<comment><USER13> how is it that you trust Google to define democracy for us ?

<comment><USER12> A word doesn't have an inherent meaning that extends beyond how it's used. Dictionaries don't dictate definitions, they describe them; at best, they provide a Schelling point.

Google's definition in this case isn't out of sync with common usage or with any other dictionary that I'm aware of. Think for a second about point you're trying to make exactly, because it sounds to me like a vague soup of paranoid anti-corporate gibberish.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Its probably worth noting that this site may be manipulated:

[http://variety.com/2017/digital/news/white-house-petition- si...](http://variety.com/2017/digital/news/white-house-petition-site- broken-1201977541/)

After the election, many petitions were not registering signatures. My position is that this was deliberate. So if this somehow 'fails' or gets stuck at some number, don't be surprised...

<comment><USER15> I mean two of the top 3 petitions are calling for Trump to release his tax returns (1.1 million) and put his assets in a blind trust (356,031).

Whether or not the site is being manipulated I can guarantee no one from the White House is clamoring to respond.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm not so sure disagreeing is grounds for demanding resignation. And a couple clicks for a digital signature hardly says, "I'm pissed odf." Pardon me but I'm just not a believer in slack-tivism.

If ya wanna move the needle ya got to hit'em where it hurts. Boycot FB. Boycot Twitter. Boycot Netflix. Boycot Amazon. Even if it's just for a day, those are all actions that will be heard.

If Small Biz Saturday can be a thing, so can You Need Us More Than We Need You Friday. Okay. Agreed. The name needs some work.

</comment><comment><USER17> People are missing the point in this case. Ajit is not the problem at all, he is a pawn in a larger game.

Only hope is fixing the system.

<comment><USER18> While it's ok to not shoot the messenger, this is not the case here.

"We were just following orders" didn't stick before and shouldn't stick in this case. Whoever pull the trigger is guilty as well.

I'm actually against asking for his resignation, the appropriate action would be his _demotion_ from position.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> He should resign... for trying to rape the American people... Clinton resigned for less than that.

</comment><comment><USER20> Is it just me or is the number of signed petitions not increasing?

<comment><USER21> Guessing they do some basic verification and purge bad signatures over time. If it's anything like Reddit where subreddits with <80 subscribers get 30,000 upvotes on posts about net neutrality; one can assume that there will be a lot of bots on that site too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Seriously, is this all the plan of one guy? Ajit Pai, if so, how could we give such power to one person. I don't think it's his plan it never it's, his resignation won't mean anything.

<comment><USER20> His resignation will be a an important sign.

Suppose for the sake of my argument that this petition is successful and Ajit Paid has to resign, and the newly put in place chairman the removes net neutrality anyway.

It will then be obvious that there are powers in place that want net neutrality to fall even at the cost of having to replace the chairman.

Given that it's unlikely that net neutrality can be upheld in the current political climate, this would be a victory.

<comment><USER23> How would the "has to resign" part work? What binding power does this petition have once it reaches the required number of votes?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Why is HN pushing this post down? Considering the votes and comments the post has got ,it should be in the top of the list?

<comment><USER25> Maybe because it won't amount to anything (these petitions _never_ do) and it's wasting space on the front page?

<comment><USER24> Or are they being lobbyed by the government?

<comment><USER25> Got any proof of that?

<comment><USER24> [https://imgur.com/a/PydFk](https://imgur.com/a/PydFk)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> As a member of tech community I support Ajit Pai and I think what he is doing is good for the open-ness of the internet.

<comment><USER27> From what I understand he is standing in the way of an open internet. Maybe I understood it wrong?</comment></comment>


Local iPhone 3G sues developers for "Gross Abuse" of SDK - <AUTHOR> http://hacktonight.tumblr.com/post/47160691/local-iphone-3g-sues-developers-for-gross-abuse-of

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I wrote and submitted this. If that is "wrong" than feel free to bash.

<comment><USER2> It's somewhat appealing idiotic humor - I've seen and perpetrated worse myself.</comment></comment>


Your files aren't safe on Soundcloud - <AUTHOR> http://blog.jmoz.co.uk/download-soundcloud-mp3

<comment><USER2> Well, what do you expect? DRM?

Whatever SoundCloud do isn't going to prevent someone from firing up Audacity to record their loopback audio device.

</comment><comment><USER3> What a news... PS: and the same applies to Spotify or YouTube or every other streaming websites.

</comment><comment><USER4> Why the fuck would you make a post about this? It's currently an insignificant problem because everyone doesn't know about it so Soundcloud turn a blind eye to it. If you tell everyone how to do this, they'll be forced to implement DRM or some garbage because you couldn't keep your fucking mouth shut/wanted ad money or something.

Please take this down. You're basically fucking over what is essentially an honour system.

</comment><comment><USER5> Was anyone ever really under the impression that Soundcloud was immune to this kind of ripping?

The DJs/producers I know who put their mixes on Soundcloud do it for the exposure and to possibly get some sales out of it from fans. It's generally accepted that some people just won't pay, and there's nothing that can really be done about that.

</comment><comment><USER6> soundcloud is not claiming to be 'safe', and if you are hosting sound files on a public website with any illusion that they are not going to wind up with whoever wants them you're mistaken. even if the method detailed in this article did not work, you could still just record the output of your soundcard.</comment>


Uber-Waymo case: Dramatic turn as judge says Uber lawyers withheld evidence - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Uber-Waymo-case-Dramatic-turn-as-judge-says-Uber-12388930.php <comment><USER2> Straight up this company should be dissolved. Is there any precedent of a corporation having its charter or whatever allows it to exist revoked for bad faith? It seems obvious now they completely indend to break the law as part of doing business.

</comment><comment><USER3> I was just starting to think Waymo didn't have anything to win this case, but this is incredible.</comment>


Ask HN: What's a bipolar Lisp programmer to do? - <AUTHOR>

Stories like this ring all too true for me: http://www.lambdassociates.org/blog/bipolar.htm<p>So my question is, if one realizes that he has such tendencies how does he cope? I see it as a hurdle not a roadblock but I don't have the slightest clue where to start with this one. <comment><USER2> Use your smartness to install routines and hacks in your life to help you cope with down phases. Use your up phases to the fullest of your potential. Help Lisp environment to become better and better.</comment>


Ask HN: Is there market for self-host, customizable web UI for Google BigQuery? - <AUTHOR> Hi HNers,
I'm trying to build an open-source, self-hosted, easy-to-customize web UI for Google BigQuery. Do you find it a product that you would like to use? Discussion on features are also very welcome.
The product is to solve some problems I experienced when using Google BigQuery:
(1) Cost saving. There are quite a few common, well-known "best practices" that a self-hosted web UI can easily enforce to save cost, for example discourage users from using "SELECT *" [1]. But to me it would be hard to imagine Google actually adds this feature to their own BigQuery UI, since they are getting paid when users don't follow the "best practices".
(2) Allow users to add links to the UI. For example, I think many companies would like to add links of internal guidelines on how to use BigQuery and how to find datasets.
(3) Keyboard shortcuts. There are a lot of shortcuts I would like to add in BigQuery, such as "focus on result sheet", or "open query history".
Do you think it's an idea worth spending time on? Feedback is very appreciated.
Thanks!
[1] https://cloud.google.com/bigquery/docs/best-practices-costs <comment><USER2> I'm not sure - the existing web ui is decent enough and simple -- more advanced users may end up in something with charting anyway - metabase, tableau, etc.

And in the mind of a lot of people now - self-hosted is more of an annoyance than a win if you don't have a hosted version of the app...

</comment><comment><USER3> Snowflake is working on Snowsight, in public preview. I suppose what you are describing is a more refined query layer, which is somewhere between Snowsight and Metabase

[https://docs.snowflake.com/en/user-guide/ui- snowsight.html](https://docs.snowflake.com/en/user-guide/ui-snowsight.html)</comment>


Steve Yegge: Singleton Considered Stupid  - <AUTHOR> http://steve.yegge.googlepages.com/singleton-considered-stupid

<comment><USER2> Pages 243 to 256 are, in my copy at least, the Interpreter pattern, in case anyone else was wondering.

<comment><USER3> _Pages 243 to 256 are, in my copy at least, the Interpreter pattern_

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpreter_pattern>

From what I can tell, using this is a pretty clear sign you should be using a language with macros...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Ironically, my experience was that everybody seemed to only understand the factory pattern. Wherever I worked, people loved using factory, whether it made sense or not.

<comment><USER5> I can't stand it when people use Factory in Python. In Python, classes are objects -- you can just pass a class into a function as a parameter!

<comment><USER6> you cant in java!?

<comment><USER4> Of course you can.

I don't see how passing around classes could replace the factory pattern?

In Java these days usually Spring is the factory...

<comment><USER7> Usually you use the factory pattern because you want to customize the concrete type of object that's instantiated, correct? In Python, you'd just pass the class itself in, and since every class is a callable that constructs an instance of itself when called, you can use that to control instantiation:

       class Foo: ...
       class Bar: ...
       def factory_client(cls):
          my_instance = cls()
          ...
          return my_instance

       foo_instance = factory_client(Foo)
       bar_instance = factory_client(Bar)

You can do the same thing in Java with Class objects and reflection (Class.newInstance() etc.), but reflection is a.) slow and b.) clunky, so most Java programmers create factories instead. Parameterized classes are much more a part of Python culture than Java culture.

<comment><USER4> Well thinking about Spring, it does a lot of wiring behind the scenes. How would you do that with Python? What does the factory_client method do?

I don't think Java Reflection is a/the problem.

<comment><USER7> factory_client does whatever you want it to do - it's just the method that would call your Abstract Factory or Factory Method or whatever.

I've never used Spring, but I assume that the wiring it does is similar to JSF managed beans, eg. you give it an XML config file and it takes care of creating the appropriate Java objects from that. As for how you'd do it in Python - you wouldn't. To quote Phillip Eby: "XML is not the answer. It is not even the question."

<http://dirtsimple.org/2004/12/python-is-not-java.html>

That's because XML is usually easier to write than Java but harder to write than Python, so you're better off just writing the Python.

You'd write your classes, and then stick them in a data structure somewhere. You could even use the package structure of your app as that data structure - have the client code receive a module (modules and packages are first-class in Python), then use getattr to pull out the class object. Then when you have a class object, you call it to create a new instance.

I suppose if you want some security guarantees, you'd explicitly specify the classes that may be passed in to the method. For example, in my own app, I have a bunch of classes that essentially represent language constructs in a visual domain-specific language, each of which has a "default" value so that when the user's clicking away they don't have to type in code from scratch. I wanted to expose these defaults to JavaScript, the language of the UI. So I put together a dictionary of the classes that I want exposed, then loop through it, instantiate each class as the default, encode each object as a plain old dictionary (they all have a 'props' method that returns the object represented as a JSON-suitable dictionary), and JSON-encode the whole mess. It totals like 5 lines for the whole thing, not counting the list of classes to be exposed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Curiously, somehow only in OOP there is a real need for teaching/learning "patterns", whereas outside of the everything-is-object world anything you do is a "pattern".

<comment><USER9> Indeed, I found that this statement sounded alarms in my critical thinking cortex:

"the Singleton "pattern" encourages you to forget everything you know about OO design, since OO is hard, and procedural is easy."

Why, oh why, are we encouraging people to use OO 100% of the time, when it's admittedly harder than the alternatives? (I'm looking at _you_ , Java.) Methinks the bandwagon continues to play on, even after two decades...

<comment><USER10> Something that Alex Martelli said in one of his talks when I was starting off with Python was something along the lines of: "Ignore OOP!"

I had never heard anyone suggest anything like that before, I think some developers think OOP is "the way forward." I spent many months trying to force my mind to think in an OOP manner, now I don't even bother. Occasionally I find a place where it does work, but it's definitely not a magical bullet.

<comment><USER11> I've just noticed that there are two "impedance mismatches" in a lot of applications.

UI -> Domain Model -> Persistence

Most people know of the 2nd one. The 1st one is just as big an impedance mismatch!

Most of the ways of doing UIs are not OO. If UIs were OO in a given environment, then naive developers following the path of least resistance starting from the GUI "hello world" would naturally build an OO application.

Are there any environments like that? Is Rails one such environment?

<comment><USER9> Most UI code is intrinsically event-based. e.g., "on click, do this", "on resize, do that"

Erlang comes to mind as a good event-based language. Strangely, it is rarely (if ever) used for UI.

<comment><USER11> I guess this is why Rob Pike can spend 6 months writing a concurrency-friendly language like Newsqueak, then use it to write a GUI windowing system in a coupe of hours.

<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=810232012617965344>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> When writing a game, I tend to have a singleton "Game" or "World" class (well, actually a static class, I don't bother with all the getInstance() crap), and from there a bunch of proper classes all "owned" by Game. Now, I'm basically using static classes as a namespace here, but is this really that harmful? If so, what options do I have?

<comment><USER4> I guess it will fly in your face once you'll try to create multiplayer games and serve several games at the same time?

What do you gain from making a game a singleton?

<comment><USER12> Well in that case, I'd have a Server class and a Client class. One handles logic and the other handles display and input.

And actually, for my last little prototype (now that I think about it), I didn't make it a singleton, I just had a single public instance of it.

Question retracted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> OK, so reading this article is enough to thoroughly convince one to rethink the usage of Singletons. But what other design patterns would you guys recommend? Most of the common design patterns are some form of Singleton implementation or the other and suffer many of the same drawbacks Steve points out in the article - what are the alternatives?

(I've been making do with custom interactor classes that perform object sharing by using linked-list of class instances with a custom "mapper" and though it works great it's really hard to explain to anyone).

Also - any books you guys would recommend as an alternative to Design Patterns?

<comment><USER14> I never liked the patterns books because I always thought they gave you solutions without knowing what the problem was.

Ever learn MVC? Might be a good place to start.

<comment><USER13> When you write your own MVC you'll come right back to the original patterns question. MVC is just the thing programmers interact with so they don't have to deal with inter-class interactions directly. But the MVC framework itself needs to manage those interactions somehow, using one pattern or the other.

<comment><USER14> Sure enough.

So your question is "How do I write good controllers?"

It's kinda hard for me to give you specific advice without a model and a set of behaviors to traverse. I guess "do good things" and "don't do stupid things" is about it. Singletons are not evil, but, like, gotos, I'd try to avoid them if at all possible.

In my experience, once you've matured the model enough for it to be code, you're automatically thinking in terms that leads to good design. Singletons pop out when you start with a small piece of the problem and try to bludgeon whatever you've got into a solution. These problems arise when you start to design from the bottom-up and use functional paradigms instead of OO paradigms. Nothing wrong with that, but for good code you should really pick one or the other and stick with it.

<comment><USER13> Looking back at my post I see my mistake. I understand OOP programming and class interactions very well, and as I mentioned have my own "pattern" that I'm using to great satisfaction; built, like you say, from the ground-up to serve that particular purpose. Getting there wasn't easy and certainly not reproducible - it was a mess.

So, my problem is that my solution is specific to my case and it's terribly complicated to explain to someone asking for advice on design patterns. So my question isn't actually how to write a good controller but what resources to recommend for intermediate-level coders asking for advice on the matter.

<comment><USER14> Not sure if I'm being helpful to you or not, but I'll reply again hoping I hit on something that you find useful.

I think the question is: at what point when designing from the bottom-up do you realize it was shorter to come at it from the top down? And at that point do you do a "52-pickup" and refactor, make the best of what you have, or continue working the way you were?

I used to do this, but haven't for a long time. I was really suprised when I got into this same mess a year or two ago writing a system that had multiple datasources and multiple valid object graphs.

Looking at this from the distance of a year or more, my mistake was in paradigms. I really should have went totally functional with the project instead of trying a classic OOP-tiering structure. Because my head was in the wrong place, I was like a guy with a square peg trying to get it into a round hole -- I just kept thinking I needed a bigger hammer.

Now I could have still kept an OO mentality and solved the problem -- no doubt about it. But that would have required more design up front than I gave it. So in this case lack of sufficient thinking up front combined with my head being in the wrong space caused the code base to be a lot more jumbled than it should have been.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "The problem is, about 1/3 to 1/2 of them were basically cover-ups for deficiencies in C++ that don't exist in other languages. Although I'm not a huge Perl fan anymore, I have to admit the Perl community caught on to this first (or at least funniest). They pointed out that many of these so-called patterns were actually an implementation of Functional Programming in C++."

Compare Norvig (1998): "Design Patterns in Dylan or Lisp: 16 of 23 patterns are either invisible or simpler". <http://norvig.com/design-patterns/>

</comment><comment><USER16> Do I get bonus points for not really seeing much point to the Singleton pattern when I read the GoF book? In fact, I can generalize that to say that all the patterns seemed either obvious or pointless.

I still haven't decided what that means about me as a programmer.

<comment><USER17> > Do I get bonus points for not really seeing much point to the Singleton > pattern when I read the GoF book?

This comment entitles the bearer to one (1) Hacker News Bonus Point.

Don't spend it all in once place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> "In my Data Structures course in college, when we got to AVL trees, my prof turned and wrote on the board, in huge, clear letters:

AVL Trees are EVIL

...and that's all we had to learn about them. He had us implement red/black trees and splay trees instead. To this day, I have no idea how threaded AVL trees work. But if that's OK with Dan Weld, it's OK with me. "

Thank goodness it wasn't: "LISP is EVIL". Or replace lisp by anything useful and generally misunderstood.

<comment><USER19> I think the professor's point is that using red-black trees is a dominant strategy over using AVL trees.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> There are no stupid design patterns, only stupid programmers who don't understand why they are using the design patterns.

<comment><USER21> _only stupid programmers_

the thing is, you can't just read a book about design patterns (any book, no matter how well written) and know when to apply them. You'll have to try it, make mistakes, learn from them, make mistakes in the opposite direction and so forth.

People should build some personal throwaway projects and cram in every design pattern they know. That should at least get them started on the learn/mistake cycle. At least it did so for me. Though in my last project I was totally abusing the factory pattern while all the while chanting "I shall not use patterns when they are not necessary" :blush:

<comment><USER22> That's right. The programmer may not be stupid at all. He or she may just be in the middle of learning patterns.

One might say that only stupid speakers make simple grammatical errors. Or they might be beginners in a second language. I hope and expect to always be a beginner in something in my life, whether it's a new computer or human language, a new craft, or some other new way of thinking.

By the way, Peter Norvig says that in Dylan or Lisp, 16 of 23 patterns are either invisible or simpler.

That's from the "Design Patterns in Dylan or Lisp" slide from his Design Patterns presentation at:

<http://www.norvig.com/design-patterns/></comment></comment></comment>


Exploring the Amiga – A series of posts on the computer that wouldn't die - <AUTHOR> http://blog.thedigitalcatonline.com/categories/amiga/ <comment><AUTHOR> This is a series of "lab notes" on the Amiga that I am writing while I explore the architecture and the operating system. I hope others find this interesting and useful.

<comment><USER2> thank you for the work you did. Only wish you wrote and I read this 20..errr..30 years ago...

<comment><AUTHOR> You are welcome! Yes I have the same feeling when discovering these things or when I read some books on past architectures. It took me years to learn some parts of MS-DOS or x86 Assembly :)</comment></comment></comment>