Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@smsowmya/harassment-at-apple-my-perspective-ea0168e15002#.1rx8vvcxp <comment><USER2> If I was back at the start of my career, I would of dismissed this article and told the author to "toughen up". After all, what's a bit of ribbing among co- workers? Surely she's just being overly-sensitive.

Until I had the (mis)pleasure of working with a truly toxic co-worker did my mindset completely change on the issue of bullying, intimidation, and hostility in the workplace. He was a senior guy, decent at his job. But how he was able to change the dynamic of _multiple_ teams was very offsetting. Communication declined, as people didn't want to go near the team that had the guy that was insulting them everytime on a whim. Workplace politics were on the rise. The common denominator was this guy was involved with every issue. Management stayed quiet and attempted to push it under the rug for a bit, but eventually they had to take notice. It was so relieving to walk in one day to him cleaning out his desk. I remember locking eyes with him one last time and giving him a final unspoken send off with a stern glare. He turned the corner and I never saw him again. My co-workers and myself went out for lunch as a celebration. The amount of relief was incredible. It was like starting fresh again.

Back to the article, I still can't say I fully understand what this woman went through. But just having a taste of how off-putting 1 toxic employee can be really opened my eyes. I can't fathom having multiple employees or even a _manager_ with that type of behavior. I won't comment on gender or racial issues.

Being stressed from work is okay. Some jobs have more stress than others, and at higher frequencies. But being stressed from the people at work is needless stress that compounds on top of the regular work stress that we all accept to some degree when entering a job or role.

<comment><USER3> Honestly, I think many of the dismissive reactions to these things have a similar basis. It can look like people excusing this behavior, but I think in many cases they've just never _seen_ this behavior.

If the worst you've seen at work is friendly teasing and maybe some racy language, it's easy to assume that's what happened and someone is overreacting.

If you've seen someone truly corrosive, that assumption changes. There's a world of difference between teasing and toxicity, even if the person doing it is careful enough to use language that could fall into either category. I can only imagine the frustration of writing down someone's comments and thinking "that doesn't look so bad on paper" when context made it clear (often to everyone present) that the exchange was terrible.

And on a related note, I think companies that handle these things poorly have misunderstood their incentives. Yes, avoiding lawsuits is important to them, and yes, I can even see why they wouldn't admit there was a problem. But to _not take action_ is terrible - as your story indicates, a sufficiently toxic employee can destroy the functioning of an entire team. Burying an incident may be easy, but it's not a good business choice when you're going to lose good, valuable staff over the issue.

(I believe _The Dilbert Principle_ suggested this was the single most important thing a manager could do: make sure this kind of hostility never, ever persisted on a team.)

<comment><USER4> Except its almost never teasing, its bullying.

I learned the difference between teasing someone and bullying in elementary school, directly via the education system (ie. the teacher).

Repeated 'joke' on/about the same subject? Bullying.

Is it mutual fun between/with different subjects, and can the subject themselves laugh about the joke? Teasing.

Telling someone to 'shape up' after they heard a joke regarding their race, sex, or something else the umptieth time is nigh annoying, and they will explode internally if they're introvert. People do notice this, and it gives bullies (ie. narcissists) fuel. The extroverts will more clearly defend their boundaries, so bullies tend to stick away from those. I don't know if the subject in this story is introvert, but I do know -and this is a generalisation- Indian women are rather courteous.

<comment><USER3> I agree with the distinction you're making, but I don't see at all how it supports the "almost never teasing" lead-in. I'm making a general point, and there are plenty of workplaces where "different subjects and people laugh at themselves also" is a perfectly good summary.

I also agree that teasing really shouldn't tread on race/sex/etc - even if it's innocently meant it can easily be a topic too raw for human, and too similar to not-at-all-innocent comments.

Which is why your last line is jarring - it's almost exactly the sort of comment that you and the original post are objecting to!

<comment><USER4> > but I don't see at all how it supports the "almost never teasing" lead-in

Agreed! Not sure where the theory I use is from but allow me to explain:

Ring 0: 0-5 people. Your best friends. Can be family members, too. Max 5 people, likely less. Ring 1: Your other family, and friends. (These are _not_ your Facebook friends.) Ring 2: Everyone else you know, or think you know. Your co-workers are probably in ring 2. You barely know them, if at all, and you must stay courteous to them by default. Maybe you drink a cup of coffee with a few of them during a break, and eventually get close and get to ring 1 (or even 0, just don't dream about that).

[Note I am not sure if there is also a ring 3 to distinct further. I don't use it.]

So IOW I default co-workers in ring 2.

Those people in ring 0, you can say pretty much anything you want to them. I can make a very, very bad joke about something to people in ring 0 and they'll know I am joking. They can take the offence, and I can take offence from them as well, besides I know when they're joking and when not. It is because I know these people very well, for a longer period of time, and I love them. You don't _make_ friends, you _become_ friends; ie. you can't really force people to get higher in the ring. It kinda goes natural, over time.

The people in ring 2 require a professional attitude. Those are your co- workers. You don't insult them, you don't hurt them, you don't bully them, and... you don't tease them. Why not? Teasing belongs to those in ring 0, and perhaps in ring 1 provided you're careful.

> Which is why your last line is jarring - it's almost exactly the sort of > comment that you and the original post are objecting to!

Oh, in such a situation I'd keep it before me, so that'd be some kind of thought crime. The reason why it matters in this context tho is because that detail makes it easy to envision how she became a victim of bullies. You see, bullies pick their victim like a leopard picks their pray. In this example they wouldn't pick a vocal woman who seems to stand up for themselves.

<comment><USER5> I like your explanation using rings, and I'd say there is a ring 3 which is new acquaintances. For instance, someone who you're introduced to by a ring 1 or 2, and end up hanging out with for the remainder of a night out. They're not as much a stranger as someone you pass on the sidewalk, but you only know about them based on what they've told you during this first extended encounter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think commenters who are reacting negatively to this story are reacting to the vocabulary rather than the story.

Obviously I'm not a witness, but I tend to believe that these events took place more or less as the author describes them.

At the same time, words like "sexism" and phrases like "as a minority..." are a big turn-off to some readers, myself included. This isn't because I don't believe in racism/sexism/xenophobia, it's because we're never going to be able to agree on definitions for those terms and so they end up being almost useless as descriptors.

I would put this in almost literary terms: I don't want events to be described, I want them to be recounted. This is also how I feel about movies and literature: I want novels/screenplays that "show rather than tell." I don't want to be told how to think about an event, I just want it to be presented to me.

I also believe that categorizing your personal experiences in terms of broader social phenomena is a mistake. In my opinion, this kind of thinking leads to generalization and tends to obscure the actual events that took place and the actors involved.

All that aside, absolute sympathy to the author here. It's incomprehensible to me that people can behave like this, but sadly they do.

<comment><USER7> The vocabulary is absolutely flawed. These are _very_ bold claims which need to be backed up with facts.

For instance, the behavior is clearly spelled out here:

        One day, one of my supervisors jumped to my defense at a team event, in an awkward display of sexism.

OP explains how she felt and tells us exactly what action caused her to feel that way. However:

        The group started insinuating...

        They also made remarks implying...

These don't tell me any actual actions, just how she interpreted them. I'm left to judge the second two quotes by the severity of the action in the former.

<comment><USER8> I was thinking the same.

I'm a man an being recently made more aware of how some females friend perceive some so called "un-harmful cheesy jokes" I often advocate to my boss or college that they shouldn't make such jokes because you can never now how they are perceived.

However to escalate the problem up to the HR you need at least some ground. At some point she said than HR asked here to explain what she found was offensive. And she suggest that asking what was offensive was itself offensive. This is pretty meta.

I don't see how HR acted badly they needed to known exactly what happened in order to act. I mean you cannot pretend to be a whistleblower but kept being shy or vague about words used. And you can't say it was edited by the press, it's a blog.

So if OP is here please be clear did the manager say something like: "Guys please don't be to hard on my sweet little girl, you know she can't handle it"

And then colleges could have gone "Hey here come the boss's bitch!"

This I can understand, not vague and redacted sentences. Because unless you are precise (and sometimes graphic) sincere skeptical people will always wonder if it was your colleagues attitude or you perception that was flawed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There is a mental trap I have personally fallen into I will dub the "Friendliness Trap" where you start to incorrectly think of someone you work closely with as your close friend due to the forced proximity and "friendly" interaction. This can foster inappropriate workplace behavior your brain justifies as OK.

For instance friendly teasing, sometimes even started by the person themselves (e.g. "Oh, you know us [blanks], good at [blank]") can be taken way too far. People wrongly get the sense that something is OK because the person doesn't complain or laughs along and it can escalate to the point of full on harassment and your brain still thinks "[person] is my buddy, it's OK". I think it's partially human nature and wanting to fit in. The person being teased doesn't want to come off adversarial, the person teasing thinks it's "their joke".

I realized long ago simply _don 't tease people at work_. They are not around you by choice. Don't assume people at work are friends in the way your drinking buddies are friends. You honestly have no idea how they really feel about it until it's too late, save it for your friends who are around you by choice.

<comment><USER10> I'd add : why do you need to tease in the first place ? There's no reason to do that.

<comment><USER11> I'd say it depends on a lot of factors such as local culture, company culture (or team culture for larger companies), etc. So just saying 'there is no point' is probably not an answer.

<comment><USER12> Precisely. It will also depend on how well you've grown to know and become friends with the people in question.

Myself and my close friends curse, insult and tease each other in a manner that we find entertaining; however if I had this same type of interaction with someone I've only known for a couple of months it would be insulting and I'd avoid that person.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > I was getting preferential treatment because of my "cuteness factor"

> Indian women being subservient

I agree that these comments don't belong in the workplace. I have seen similar ones lead to people fired on the day and escorted to the door. Thankfully it's relatively rare but some places do take it very seriously.

Apple was wrong. In Australia the law is clear and they've breached it. Take them to court and get your payout. It's annoying that the victim has to do that but it's possible.

For other parts of the article I put myself in her shoes and didn't find management's treatment of her particularly different from how I (a male) would be treated after complaining about the actions of anyone else (male or female) in the workplace - which is why I don't. HR is ineffectual and the company is against you regardless of whomever is at fault. It just wants one or the other party gone so things can go back to normal, so if it's you versus five other people it's easier to fire and rehire one than five.

> employers also have an obligation to handle the situation with empathy and > integrity

And this line stood out at me as being divorced from reality especially at a big company.

I get it that we mostly want companies to be like this but I think it's also obvious that they're not. They are primarily profit motivated and we're lucky if they don't pollute the environment or commit atrocities in the process.

You can look for smaller companies that do it, you can put it in your own company, but if you really felt Apple would be like that then it's being a little naive.

I worked at one mid-size company that was acquired by a competitor who wanted to drive in the boot heel by firing the previous management in as embarrassing a way as possible. My boss was on the chopping block and had false charges levelled at him over email and summarily fired. He took it through the Australian workplace relations system to try to get some closure, until the government advised there's no law to prevent a company making anything up and firing you for it. He could have pursued defamation but that's also extremely difficult, long, and expensive, and he didn't have the money.

It was at that point I grew up in my career and decided you really can't trust any company to look out for you. That's not how it works.

<comment><USER14> > And this line stood out at me as being divorced from reality especially at a > big company. I get it that we mostly want companies to be like this but I > think it's also obvious that they're not. They are primarily profit > motivated and we're lucky if they don't pollute the environment or commit > atrocities in the process. You can look for smaller companies that do it, > you can put it in your own company, but if you really felt Apple would be > like that then it's being a little naive.

I do not disagree that this is true, but I would suggest that this also is not an acceptable status quo. Complacency doesn't help it, and the unfortunate reality is that most companies just want to get into a battle of wills with those who are targets of harassment rather than take the time to address the issue as they should be.

You are right that this seems to happen once you breach a certain threshold - I assume at that point legal gets more pre-emptive in its protection of the company and tries to divorce itself from the goings-on in Human Resource areas. Plus, as I said elsewhere in this discussion, finding and/or training managers to handle these issues in a fair way is not easy, nor is it easy to be the manager dealing with this situation.

But I don't think that complacency is the answer, and she's not wrong that in many countries, the employer does have an obligation to handle the events. Attributing the sensations to it I'm not sure I fully agree with, but many countries do require investigative procedures, which according to the article weren't really performed well by management at Apple.

<comment><USER15> Sadly, if the company isn't profit-motivated, it will be displaced by a profit-motivated one. At this point large companies are eerily similar to the hypothetical paperclip-maximizing AI that converts the entire earth in paperclips. Except that making more money lets you make even more money in a snowball effect.

The fix is probably to check glassdoor etc. as much as you can before working for a potentially unethical company. But then you'll be restricted to working for only a small handful of companies.

The other fix is to only work as a contractor, so you're isolated from the effects of being practically a serf to a company entity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I tell a lot of younger developers this, because it's an important truth that will never, ever be spoken aloud.

The sole role of Human Resources is to protect the company from liability, either through lawsuits or labor law compliance. Occasionally managers will abdicate their duty and delegate parts of hiring authority to a section of the company with no understanding of what they do and no accountability for getting it wrong, but that's not as common as you think. Most hiring just gets rubber stamped by HR, not driven by them.

That's all. They're a cost center with no authority beyond saying "this kid is gonna cost us a lot of money if we don't get rid of them"\-- either by being a harasser or by being the litigious type (to HR, they're actually the same thing).

If you're expecting them to intercede on your behalf with your manager without something being _obviously_ out of control, ie lawsuit-worthy, you're gonna have a hard time.

<comment><USER10> spot on. HR is there to make sure you abide. The funny thing is that they usually don't understand that themselves (some people don't think about _why_ they do their job besides getting money/cars/holidays). Things seem to be different in non-profit/non-compete companies though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> For anyone new to office politics, or have not experienced hostile politics before, keep those in mind:

\- Make sure to have some real friends at work. No, someone you work with everyday is not necessarily a real friend, you have to make real connections with them, so they are willing to defend and support you when things get tough.

\- Be observant and empathetic, so you can notice problems when they first arise, and resolve them before they escalate. This is hard for engineers, as we focus on computers most of the time and don't get to practice the skills of empathy a lot.

\- Be strong. Sometimes escalations do happen, and now you have one or more people dislike you and try to make your life hard. You need to be emotionally strong to withstand their attacks, and keep a clear mind to figure out a way to defeat them or at least reach a ceasefire.

Sadly, politics happen all the time when inter-personal interactions happen, not necessarily the result of one shady colleague with agendas. This could happen to anyone, although sadly more often to minorities, because it's harder to hide the fact that we are outsiders.

<comment><USER18> It's sad that with very few words changed, this could just as easily be a guide to surviving prison.

<comment><USER11> Well, when money and power are at question (which is true for pretty much every company), it tends to get the worst of some people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is a serious problem.

My concern is people seem to think it only happens in previously (and still) male dominated fields. It happens everywhere.

I think the woman that voice their concerns and challenges are more abundant in the tech industry probably because the industry is more progressive and generally more educated.

Where I have seen ultra sexism has been in sales and finance. Extremely disturbing in your face sexism. Anecdotally the sexism in tech is sort of passive aggressive but the sexism in other industries is disturbingly direct (one could argue the subtle one being worse). My point is it is everywhere.

I hope the tech industry fixes it and becomes the leader.

</comment><comment><USER20> There are many articles describing bullying and harassment. This is one worth reading as it

\- does not put blame for handling it on any single person or function.

\- illustrates systemic dysfunction. Normal incentives work against handling the abuse claim - HR tries to protect company, managers caught in conflict of interest

\- points out the result of management not acting clearly. The person bullied feels taking on more responsibility of navigating the mess. As the person has no effective control this add more distress.

\- shows the manager dilemma when supporting minority (in whatever sense) in a naive way. The person standing out stands out even more. Dammed if you do and probably dammed if you don't.

\- even in an environment where the bullied person is receiving widespread support from others at times (scene at the table where other were speaking up) long running and extreme stress does damage.

\- few understand that the problems often only show up months later as it is typical for PTSD

It is very difficult to say what can be done to prevent this. It is obvious that management is making the wrong decisions but why? I believe the author is on something with the conflict of interest. I would add avoidance of conflict - they are empowered to handle it but shy away. Then there is inability to handle bullies by a lot of them - trying to be even handed since this is the normal mode when one side is obviously overstepping (similar to press-Trump relationship).

What could be done by companies? Specialized people/services dealing with that sort of behavior may be one. Making sure management is well grounded in values and knows how to decide in these conflict of interest cases may help a little too.

What can one do to be prepared? Not being weak is probably the best preparation. Ability to fight and win or to pack and run is key to be able to force a resolution.

What to do when caught in it? These days I think getting external help early. Covering two sides: The psychological one (therapist with first hand experience of psychopathic people and stress management, possibly PTSD) and legal advice.

Full disclosure: Could tell a similar sad tale.

</comment><comment><USER21> My brother, as a manager of a big team in Belgium, had once to face a complain to the HR about he harassing a secretary. The reaction of the company was immediate, and in my opinion the right one.

They contracted a specialize company to investigate, collect the facts and present their conclusions. The conclusions would be sent at the same time to the alleged victim, the HR and the manager.

In this case the conclusion was that there was no harassment according to legal definition. These argumented conclusions would have been presented to a trial as reference if any party would want to contest them.

The company performing the audit is specialized in it. So they can recognize a real harassment from an abusive claim. They also have no interest in the company. It is in the interest of the company to call them to get a leverage to apply whatever measure they would find appropriate. If the victim is an employee, and he/she would consider the reaction inappropriate and abusive, he/she could complain to a tribunal.

Today, a company that is not reacting like that (diligent an investigation by an independent party) to a harassment complain would be considered a priori suspect or would be consider to have failed complying to its duty because it is their responsibility to do so.

<comment><USER22> I think that is a good start, but we should be aware of the flaws in an approach like this.

I had friends at a company with serious security breach. There was a hullabaloo, all sort of important people in the company upset and questioning whether they should fire the head of tech. To calm the waters, the head of finance hired an outside firm to investigate. All good, right?

Here, the head of finance liked the head of tech and trusted him. The outside firm, knowing who buttered their bread, fished around for clues on how the report was supposed to land. And as expected, the report was, "some flaws, a couple of dumb mistakes, but basically sound." From the same facts, a hostile auditor could have come to the opposite conclusion, that the dumb mistakes were indicative of deep flaws and the whole company was put needlessly at risk.

Specialized audit companies have to get paid. They claim to be neutral parties, but they have an inherent conflict of interest. If you choose the right one, you can get a better result than an internal investigation. But you can also choose one that serves the interests of whoever's paying the bills.

<comment><USER3> It seems like bond rating services here are an obvious point of comparison. They got paid to rate bonds, which meant they got paid by people with a strong desire for certain ratings, which meant that they "competed" not on price but on laxity of ratings. Most of us know how that one played out ~8 year ago.

Independent investigation is great, but you're right to observe that "outside" is not necessarily "independent". I suppose there are a few solutions to that: you could break the financial link (in the bond case, get consumers or the government to pay raters), or you could establish a culture where inaccurate results destroy reputation.

I'm sure there are auditors who do objective work for the people paying them simply because they value being known as reliable (and who are hired because the auditee wants a result people will trust). Without some precedent, we probably shouldn't assume that rosy case is happening.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> HR works for the company. When you consider your moves keep in mind HR works for the company. You are not paying HR salaries. Get outside legal help and advice.

<comment><USER24> Came here looking for this comment...

"I approached my management when the situation escalated, who directed me to HR. Instead of helping me, HR embarked on a defensive and confrontational script. I felt cornered, unsafe and unsure of what to do next."

It's HR's job to mitigate the risk to the company. They are not your friend, they are there to save the company from harm.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Wow! To imagine that the culture at one of the best engineering teams in the world is this poisonous is shocking.

I wonder if things would have played out differently if she had immediately addressed her supervisor's unnecessary defense. While this seems like the starting point for the harassment, my guess is that it was ingrained in the team all along and would have come out at one point or another. Not that that makes it any better.

Truly horrible experience for anyone to go through and I hope she finds a better place to work in and can perhaps put this bitter experience to help others.

</comment><comment><USER26> I am sorry to hear that the author went through this. Though I really like Apple and have friends both male and female who've worked there for many years, I also have heard it is a harder place towards women even than a place like Google. And some of its structural elements make that harder to fix (if there even is an effort to fix it, which I have no idea about either way).

It's also quite hard to be public about this (I know someone who recently left Apple for similar reasons but won't discuss it publicly).

</comment><comment><USER27> While not the perfect solution it seems like a lot of the mentioned issues (standardized communication channels, no conflict of interest) could be solved by installing work councils (I take it they are not wide spread in the US? They are standard in Germany): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_council](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_council)

<comment><USER28> unions and work councils are fairly rare in the IT/startup sector in Germany. If they exist it's usually because it's the IT department of an old, established enterprise. The rate of union membership in anything that's IT related is comparatively low as well.

Personally, I consider that a problem, because it leaves each employee to fight their own fight. But IT folks somehow tend to believe that they don't need any help (and then subsequently sign contracts with unlimited unpaid overtime because they don't know it's illegal).

<comment><USER29> Illegal contract clauses tend to be non-enforceable. So you can sign and then ignore.

<comment><USER3> But the outcome of that depends largely on who's got the position they want.

If a contract has an illegal non-compete, it's easy for an employee to sign and then ignore it. After all, the employer would have to find the violation, sue them, and risk summary dismissal. The employee wins just by having everyone give up.

If a contract features unpaid overtime, though, the employee is working time and not getting paid. They can refuse the work, get fired, and then sue, or they can do the work and then sue for nonpayment. In either case, they need to _win_ to come out ahead, which is a lengthy and uncertain process.

Ignoring unenforceable provisions is only easy for someone who doesn't need a court decision to get a good outcome.

<comment><USER28> While it's always an option to sue for payment of unpaid overtime after you left that will still leave a mark on your resume an people may be hesitant to hire. It's also lengthy and risky because it requires solid documentation. And, first of all it requires that you're aware that the clause is overreaching and thus null and void. I often see people not getting paid for time worked because they're unaware. I also fairly often hear about uncompensated non-compete clauses which are also illegal, but people are scared to go see a lawyer. A good union provides both: a check on the contracts in a company and legal advice and professional backing in court when needed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This seems negligent on the part of HR (as well as genuinely awful).

In California, all managers are required by law to take three hours of sexual harassment training every other year. One thing that stood out to me is that there is no need to make a formal harassment claim: when anyone mentions they have experienced harassment to a manager, even in a private conversation, the manager is required to report it and investigate. If the employee says they want to keep the conversation in confidence, the manager is supposed to say they can't do that. If a manager doesn't follow up, they can be personally liable.

Several companies I've been at also have a mandatory "managers and the law" training class. I didn't talk to anyone for several days after taking it. :)

IANAL, but my understanding is that one job of HR is to protect the company. One reason they investigate is to produce evidence that could be used in the event of a lawsuit to prove they took the allegation seriously. Trying to argue with the employee that it didn't happen would put them in a really bad position if they were sued, because it could be used to demonstrate a hostile work environment.

I've seen complaints happen a few times in my career (not involving me directly), and, in those cases, HR took it gravely seriously. They talked to everyone involved and documented the crap out of it. Most of the people I've met in HR seem to genuinely care. I disagree with advice that HR should not be trusted, but my advice for someone who is in a situation where they are uncomfortable is to document everything. Keep emails of all interactions with your manager and HR and send follow up email to summarize conversations you had in person.

<comment><USER31> Appearing to genuinely care is a good pose for someone who has to collect interviews. I'm sure journalists have to fake concern to get the information they want. These HR people have to be empathetic so they succeed at getting the interviews. It doesn't have to go farther than that.

I agree that when events occur, people should make their own records.

<comment><USER30> "Appearing to genuinely care" is different than being empathetic. The former implies the person doesn't really care, the latter is by definition concern for another person.

My comment on HR people caring was a more general statement on my interactions with HR in a variety of situations. As a manager, I often see both sides of HR/employee interactions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Whenever I'm dealing with something that is serious to me, I always clearly first state to myself 1) what I want and 2) what do I do if I don't get what I want. For example in this case, it could be: 1) Jack told me _this_ and _that_ and I consider this is inappropriate. I never want to be told that again in this company 2) I leave.

What I do next is that I make sure I communicate clearly those two points to whoever I think should get me what I want. For example, in that case, I would go see my manager and say: "Jack told me _this_ and _that_ and I consider this is inappropriate. I never want to be told that again in this company. If it happens again, I quit. Have you understood? (wait for his answer) What will you do to make sure it doesn't happen anymore?" (it is important to ask if he has understood, it forces him to go right in the middle of the circle you just draw on the floor, that put him in your territory, right under your guns).

Sometimes, you will have to apply 2). For example in this case, your manager would have to tell you something substantial about what he gonna do to stop that. If what he tells you is not substantial, tell him you are not satisfied and ask him again the same question: "what can you do to make sure it will stop?". Don't quit on that. Keep asking. Only apply 2) if he don't answer anymore. It's typically a situation where "you don't leave the shop until...". If your manager tells you to go see the HR department, tell him clearly again 2): "if I don't get what I want I will leave. Do you still want me to go see the HR department? Are you sure?". Apply pressure, at every step.

Do not have _a discussion_. Don't _discuss the problem with your manager_. Don't talk. Ask your question and wait for an answer. If he want to _discuss_ , make him understand you won't.

It's crucial to apply 2) right away when you don't get what you want. I've found it's rarely the occasion to make a deal and make a compromise not so much because the deal is bad but because by doing so, they will start kidding you again.

I'm super happy so far with the result of this method. I get fantastic results from my family, employers, friends, from everybody. At first, you will feel like a freak. Then you will notice the others won't think so much that you are a freak but will think you are a strong person they should not kid with. You end up being respected.

<comment><USER33> Great comment! Thank you for posting it, I found it useful and informative, and I am sure others have as well.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> These things happen at most companies .. people get jealous and have different ways of dealing with it .. it's up to management to handle it well, but since no one talks about it, there is no management for it ..

<comment><USER34> Are you the author of the article? I'd like to apologize on the behalf of ... pretty much everyone, really, for all the stupid comments here that are focused on doubting your story. It sounds like an awful experience and I imagine all these people missing the point are compounding it.

In my experience in the tech industry, these sorts of victim-blaming people are very vocal but also are a minority, and I am embarrassed that this comment section is full of them.

<comment><USER35> There have indeed been a number of such comments, but by the time I saw the thread (I was traveling today, so missed it earlier), the community had weighed in more thoughtfully. The discussion now is genuinely not awful, and perhaps a notch better than we've seen in the past.

It's a common pattern that shallow, knee-jerk reactions show up first (because some people's reflexive defenses get triggered quickly) while thoughtful, meaningful responses take longer to appear—for one thing because they simply take longer to write. This sometimes leads to a perception gap about the community. The majority of users here, probably the vast majority, are fair and considerate. But it takes a while for that to reveal itself—longer, unfortunately, than the time it takes the rapid internet readership to move on. Not sure what we can do about this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> > _I had never before encountered this kind of visceral hatred_

This comment rang some bells for me. Have a friend from the Netherlands who was in undergrad with me, and one day in confidence he told me one of the things he didn't understand most in America is how someone can harbor, and actively maintain, such a passionate hatred for someone they aren't intimately involved with.

While this hatred is most definitely present in other first world nations, I can't avoid the fact that he is correct and far more pervasive in America. It doesn't make much sense to me.

<comment><USER37> I think this is simply just ignorance on your part and the part of your friend. People all around the world are full of hate.

Most countries are still relatively homogenous. Any country where you see some mixing, you'll see the same hate. The Middle East is too easy of an example. Germany, France, etc have a lot of overt hate. The hate in Ireland between the Protestants and the Catholics was very real and they're the same race and culture.

<comment><USER36> Naivete is a possibility, but I haven't witnessed it as _overt_ between people in my living in France (Riviera, not Paris) compared to what I've seen in America - However, as I am not a victimized group, this may be reinforcing naivete.

Despite this naivete though, I would be wary of circumstance before making the declaration "mixing of any kind = hate"

<comment><USER37> You misread what I wrote, but I never said "mixing of any kind = hate". I said specifically "Any country where you see some mixing, you'll see the same hate." The hate you see in the US is not any more or any less than you will see in France, especially in Paris where it is completely overt against Muslims.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I can't be certain whether this affected this particular case at all, but note that Northern Indian English isn't American or British English. The vocabulary is similar (not in fact identical), but emphasis of all kinds is handled entirely differently. In fact, oppositely. In Hindi and Northern Indian English PAUSES show emphasis, whereas increases in volume (for a given word) are syntactically determined and have absolutely no semantic meaning or significance whatsoever.

In American English, pauses are almost always mechanically/syntactically determined and carry no meaning, but increasing the volume for a given word shows emphasis. This EASILY leads to extreme and sudden misunderstandings in both directions, as each side sees very obvious sarcasm and emphasis where none was intended. They're both sure they're right and that they are speaking the same language, but outside of print, these are two separate languages.

Since it's more recent, the Northern Indian English vocabulary has a cleaner logic, so personally if I had to chose just one, I'd go with that, but that's neither here nor there.

Long years ago, I attended a lecture by, I believe, the first scholar to experimentally demonstrate this and publish it; and the recorded examples of ordinary real-life interactions (not staged) taking place in British businesses that he used to illustrate the lecture were extremely striking; in fact very explosive.

In case this seems like something anyone would notice - in fact it's beneath notice. Similarly, the semantic use of tones in Chinese was denied by scholars there for something like hundreds of years, before finally being acknowledged. Language is handled unconsciously for the most part.

</comment><comment><USER39> I appreciate her command over the language, and also feel sorry for problems she encountered.

Will I judge that Apple has a culture of Harassment and Tech Industry has a culture of harassment from this medium article? Definitely No. I would be foolish to judge so from hearing the arguments from a single party.

</comment><comment><USER40> Thank you for sharing your story. Sounds like a very toxic environment.

</comment><comment><USER41> What a terrible experience.

I like that she points out the conflicts of interest, wherein the legal structures in which companies are embedded so clearly work against a good solution to the problem.

However I think when she says:

"corrective actions for any violations have to be significant enough to be a deterrent to such behaviors in the future. There also needs to be some accountability for these actions"

She is taking on the same position as these legal structures - I.e. that retribution or punishment is an important part of the equation, and I think this is counter to the rest of her argument.

Men raised in a sexist society can't be individually held responsible for acting in the way they have seen people acting around them as though these are intentional crimes against women.

Massive career damage needs to be taken off the table as the first consequence for all sides of this.

That doesn't mean there shouldn't be a great deal of accountability - but it needs to be something closer to restorative justice - where those involved can understand each other rather than remain embattled.

</comment><comment><USER42> The response of the company to create a case where they want to discredit the complainant is fairly standard. They want to protect themselves.

Unless there is someone at the top that takes these matter seriously on a personal level and has communicated it to his subordinates, senior management in general only pays lip service to taking such matters seriously. These are complex matters and every one wants to get on with their work, rather than deal with the problem.

Tim Cook, I would expect, would have sent the message about taking such matters seriously. It seems like someone between him and the victim decided to add his "personal expertise" to this case and mishandled it completely.

</comment><comment><USER43> HR has the function of protecting the company from the employees, workers council or similar structures have the function of protecting the employees from the company. All the companies should have one.

</comment><comment><USER44> Why has this article completely disappeared from the site? I've paged through hundreds of articles starting at the front page, and it simply does not appear.

</comment><comment><USER45> _I approached my management when the situation escalated, who directed me to HR. Instead of helping me, HR embarked on a defensive and confrontational script._

For better or worse, HR is there to protect the company, not the employee. This is why many times they report in through legal. It's not fair, but it's the way companies work.

<comment><USER46> Why isn't it fair? Can you imagine an HR department that advocated for an individual employee if their needs directly contradicted the needs of the larger organization?

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> There's a curious lack of detail in this story. No direct quotes, or even reasonable level of detail to the accusations.

For example:

 _" One day, one of my supervisors jumped to my defense at a team event, in an awkward display of sexism."_

I'm sure there's a way that a supervisor jumping to your defense _could_ be sexist, but this isn't showing that, at all.

 _" At a lunch with several other coworkers, one of these men ordered me to summon the waiter and pay the bill, in the tone of a command to someone inferior and subservient."_

Certainly odd behavior, but I'm not sure I would call it sexist. Arrogant for sure, but surely there's more context?

To be clear, I'm not saying she's wrong, just that this story isn't helping me understand what she went through, or that it was particularly sexist, versus just hostile.

<comment><USER48> >There's a curious lack of detail in this story.

It's not curious at all. She's being careful not to identify specific individuals.

<comment><USER47> A direct quote, or more detail would go a long way in helping others understand the situation. I don't see how either would identify specific individuals. In fact, she specifically says "her supervisor", which already calls out a specific individual.

For example, the supervisor jumping to her defense. What did he say, exactly? Or failing that, what was the situation, how did he defend her? All we get is that he defended her, and she interpreted it as being sexist...sometime later.

<comment><USER48> I think you're missing the point of the article. She's helping us out by giving us a heads up about a problem in the industry. If you choose to disbelieve her, that's your prerogative.

It's pointless to make a pretence of scrutinising the article when it's obviously impossible for her to prove beyond all doubt that her recollection of events is accurate. Just believe it or don't. Don't go asking "where's the proof??", as if you are expecting her to have videotape evidence for all of this.

<comment><USER47> Not looking for her to "prove beyond all doubt".

But, there's several stories in there where a direct quote of what was said to her would be more enlightening than her interpretation as to the motive behind what was said. Or failing a direct quote...how about just the basis of his "defense" of her. Did he call out the high quality of her work (seems fine), or did he say to lay off because she was fragile (seems not fine), or what?

Her supervisor is a real person too, and I don't see why it's okay to post a public accusation without some detail other than just interpretation...what you think his intention was.

Edit: You keep saying I don't believe her. Didn't say that. It is, however, a post of public accusations, almost all based on something that was said....without a single direct quote of what was said, or even enough detail to understand why she interpreted them the way she did. That's odd to me, whether I believe her or not.

There's a big difference between "excruciating detail" and "almost no detail, and not a single direct quote".

<comment><AUTHOR> There was no quote because it was him being nicer to me than to the other men thought he should have been - it was actually him _not_ treating me like a second class citizen. It was this "equal" status that made the others feel that I got better treatment. I made no remark about anything else because I do not wish to speculate about anyone else's intentions or motivations - and that is not relevant to the point of this article at all.

<comment><USER47> >it was him being nicer to me than to the other men thought he should have been - it was actually him not treating me like a second class citizen

That sounds like you're saying the supervisor didn't do anything wrong, but rather that your coworkers took a reasonable gesture the wrong way? If so, that doesn't really jive with _" One day, one of my supervisors jumped to my defense at a team event, in an awkward display of sexism"_

I'm really not trying to be confrontational, just trying to understand. Is it that the "jumped to defense" thing was clearly sexist? Not asking for a direct quote, but what was the basis of the defense...something gender related, or the high quality of your work, or something else?

<comment><AUTHOR> There is no quote that can translate that context well. And it was sexist, perhaps even meant to be complimentary and not necessary. But it was not evil. What he did was not the point. The point is what followed and how it was handled. And every employee has more than one supervisor. I feel like you are totally missing why I wrote this piece by focusing on one sentence.

<comment><USER49> > What he did was not the point.

But the way you talk about him totally is. You shouldn't defend people who give you undeserved favors at the cost of others, if this is what he did. And you absolutely shouldn't be surprised by the consequences, if you do.

Your coworkers may have felt equally threatened by this supervisor as you did by them. Associating yourself with people like him will do you no good.

> I feel like you are totally missing why I wrote this piece by focusing on > one sentence.

No doubt. People have their own agendas to play, not everybody will support yours.

<comment><USER50> > Associating yourself with people like him will do you no good.

that's called "blaming the victim". how do you not "associate" yourself with your own supervisor ??

<comment><AUTHOR> sigh. i did not take any favors - i want my career to be built on merit and not favoritism - that is why i left the company. but do people realize that's not actually fair ? and this happens to a lot of women, not just me.

<comment><USER49> Hey, I didn't want to say that you were taking favors from the guy. I reacted to your defense of him here on HN - you initially described him as awkward and sexist but later said that he was just treating you fairly. If he was awkward there's no point pretending he wasn't. If he provoked others to hate you, there's no point pretending he didn't. It's not your fault anyway and coworkers were wrong to retaliate on you even if provoked.

And maybe my yesterday post was too harsh. I take your word that you don't want favors. But be careful with how you present this guy - I doubt that he was exactly awkward, sexist, equal and fair all at the same time :) And you wouldn't want to give appearance of rationalizing somebody who actually happens to be unfair to others, that's what I wanted to say.

<comment><AUTHOR> From my response _There was no quote because it was him being nicer to me than to the other men thought he should have been - it was actually him not treating me like a second class citizen. It was this "equal" status that made the others feel that I got better treatment. _ Note "equal" not equal. Note "nicer than they thought he should have been".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> this is an interesting perspective on tech and women in tech.

</comment><comment><USER52> I read the entire article and this is my take: this writer worked with an extreme bulley. The bulley was a ringleader. And potentially psycho.

This isn't about sexism, racism, etc. This is about a ringleader selecting a victim to prey upon for the sole purpose of causing pain.

<comment><AUTHOR> I didn't even work with him directly - he was just there and decided to pick on me, yes. And yes, that was the gist of the experience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> I wonder why she didn't record everything - especially since both managers and HR were trying to gaslight her - making her doubt her sanity.

If she'd gone to HR with recordings and they brushed aside her concerns then she'd have a much stronger case.

Well as she said, a distressed mind doesn't think properly.

<comment><AUTHOR> if i had the ability to be this clearheaded, we wouldn't be having this problem at all ..

<comment><USER54> Having been through an eerily similar episode as what you describe (but then as an LGBT employee) I did have an almost perfect paper trail but it still didn't help.

It takes an absolutely insane amount of energy to fight a huge company like this and even if you do everything right the chances are pretty good they'll wear you out first.

Best of luck with your recovery! It's been a really tough few years for me and I can't think of much to say except that I empathize with you and perhaps recommend this book [1] which looking back lists a lot of things that helped me get over it.

[1] [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18693771-the-body- keeps-...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18693771-the-body-keeps-the- score)

<comment><USER55> Thanks for sharing the book. I am an employee of another big tech company currently going through similar process of HR not being very helpful despite raising grievance for last two months. The book is on point. With children and family, the fight is not worth the stress and permanent health impact.

<comment><USER54> Indeed. I wouldn't suggest anyone enduring months and months of not feeling safe at a visceral level if you also have the choice to disengage.

If you find a way to keep feeling safe, like I imagine having a good pro-bono legal advisor could have done for me, then by all means go ahead. If not, then there's also no shame in just moving on.

<comment><AUTHOR> i agree about walking away, but i think by the time you think its a legal issue, its too late. its not easy to find a job when you have anxiety or depression - i tried a lot to do that. i also trusted the company, which i think is a fair thing to do.

<comment><USER54> > i also trusted the company, which i think is a fair thing to do.

I thought the same; but like you was mistaken in that. Looking back I've come to realize that, even though it shouldn't be, as soon as you get HR involved it's become a legal issue.

But yeah; my point was that _if_ solid legal backing could prevent you from developing the anxiety and depression, like I think it would have for me, _then_ it could be worth going through with it...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Preamble: I'm not questioning or talking against the article at all, just making some notes. The problem seems to be real all around the world, which is yet another indicator that most societies are not ready for global market.

The only thing I miss from the article: did she try to talk to her harassers directly before going to a manager? Maybe I misread something but it seems like this did not happen, yet this should always be the first step.

My additional notes:

        > Instead of helping me, HR embarked on a defensive and confrontational script.

HR is not your friend; it's one of the stakeholders' defense lines. They will only look at what's best for the company and for it's business. There are no labor unions any more; those are the ones that would actually care about your wellbeing.

        > It is not reasonable to expect the victim to have the presence of mind to know how to tackle this problem.

In certain situations it's very hard to make decisions, that is true, but this is not a seconds/minutes scenario, when you need to make immediate calls. When you have weeks, months, in some cases, I think it is all right to expect decisions from anyone.

        > Until the investigation was completed, even my honesty was at stake.

This is embarrassing - but there are people out there who lie. Especially these days, with the problems of fake news, it's easy to get suspicious.

        > harassment is one of the most brutal experiences women encounter in the workplace [...] Companies need to do far more than what they are doing right now to prevent women from eventually quitting. [...] The company needs to support and empower women to take a stand in these situations. [...] This includes considering women in these situations as people, rather than as pawns in the greater agenda of protecting the company's legal liabilities.

s/women/people

Harassment get target _anyone_, it comes in all flavours. Please don't make harassment part of the gender wars. You can get harassed for having a foreign accent in the UK. ( In a country where English pronunciation differs from village to village. )

<comment><USER57> I'm astonished this is as high as it is.

> did she try to talk to her harassers directly before going to a manager?

There are a huge number of reasons why you should not be expected to do this. The harasser can be in a position of authority, for example. Even separately to that (and i understand this is a reducio argument, but..) would you ask an abuse victim to speak to their abuser? No, they go straight to the police.

> HR is not your friend; it's one of the stakeholders' defense lines.

This is a problem that needs fixing, rather than a status quo that needs defending.

> When you have weeks, months, in some cases, I think it is all right to > expect decisions from anyone.

I report an assault. Do I suggest to the police how they should investigate and prosecute this assault? No. The victim reports the behaviour, but other parties should determine how to investigate and proceed with that report.

> This is embarrassing - but there are people out there who lie. Especially > these days, with the problems of fake news, it's easy to get suspicious.

Sometimes, yes, people do lie, but each complaint of any nature should be treated confidentially so reports of abuses like this can be made without fear of repercussion.

In the (very unlikely) event of the victim being untruthful, the matter should be dropped, not blow back on the reporter -- or nobody will report real problems for fear of being unfairly punished themselves.

> s/women/people

This didn't need to be said. The author is talking about her experiences of harassment as a woman in technology. Yes, there are other problems that also need solving. This isn't the hill on which to make this point.

<comment><USER58> "In the (very unlikely) event of the victim being untruthful, the matter should be dropped, not blow back on the reporter -- or nobody will report real problems for fear of being unfairly punished themselves."

What? Apparently, being untruthful about reporting harassment could result in the untruthful reporter being _unfairly_ punished?

Sounds like an all-win situation. Report harassment, true or not. If it helps your lot in life/work, great. If not, even if proven false, it gets dropped, non-consequentially. After all, it would be unfair to punish you...

<comment><USER59> I think kalleth was saying that _fairly_ punishing an untruthful reporter could discourage future _truthful_ reporters as they may fear being _unfairly_ punished.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> _However, a group of other male coworkers who resented the attention I received started directing inappropriate and misogynistic remarks towards me._

That statement totally reminds me of accounts I've read of conservatives and how they feel about minorities get special treatment.

I just find it really interesting that groups in power react this way while they are still in power. It's a very, very foreign thing to me and I don't understand the source of it, but there is very clearly a common thread of this running through our world right now.

<comment><USER61> > I just find it really interesting that groups in power react this way while > they are still in power

Individuals tend to do it when they perceive themselves to be in, or in danger of being in, less of a position of power and privilege than they expect. Members of groups that are, or have recently, in positions of relative power have correspondingly higher expectations as a fairly direct result of membership in such a group.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> The H1B visa system needs to be overhauled or done away with entirely. It's truly sickening to see how we as a society tolerate indentured servitude in the 21st century.

Companies use the system to purposefully depress wages. It needs to end.

</comment><comment><USER63> Harassment laws are probably not as bad as anti-discrimination laws, but I do question whether they are really needed. I remember this: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11666857](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11666857)

</comment><comment><USER64> > No one at the company took responsibility for anything other than protecting > the company's liability in case of a lawsuit

The tech industry absolutely doesn't need unions /s

<comment><USER9> From my mothers similar experiences followed by her unions absolute refusal to help, in a word, no. They exist to parasitically take your money, forcibly take others who don't want to give and really offer very little in return other than more bureaucracy.

Your much better off paying a lawyer than a union.

<comment><USER65> > They exist to parasitically take your money, forcibly take others who don't > want to give and really offer very little in return other than more > bureaucracy.

If we look at historical facts rather than your mothers anecdotes this is incredibly far from the truth.

<comment><USER66> I remember from a "Free To Choose" video that due to unions there was a huge amount of bureaucracy taking months to fire one worker in the government.

Anyways, that's just another anecdote, what are the historical facts?

<comment><USER65> Unions have fought for and won such a huge amount of the workers rights we enjoy today that it would be a disservice to try and cover all of them in a comment. Google is your friend if you'd like to learn about the history of unions and labour movements.

<comment><USER66> OK, I tried searching "worker rights due to union" and "union worker rights" and only found pages about unions protecting the right to associate. What should I input into Google?

<comment><USER67> Google searching like that is going to have trouble separating news from history.

Maybe just start with "history of worker rights." Or maybe just the wikipedia labor movement article: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_movement) It's not all strictly about changes forced through unions vs other types of activists, but once unions were made legal they were one of the strongest methods for demanding and enforcing these for large numbers of workers in the days before they were turned into laws.

<comment><USER66> > Throughout the world, action by labourists has resulted in reforms and > workers' rights, such as the two-day weekend, minimum wage, paid holidays, > and the achievement of the eight-hour day for many workers. There have been > many important labour activists in modern history who have caused changes > that were revolutionary at the time and are now regarded as basic. For > example, Mary Harris Jones, better known as "Mother Jones", and the National > Catholic Welfare Council were important in the campaign to end child labour > in the United States during the early 20th century. .

a) two-day weekend

How is this a right? Some people want to work less; some want to work more. If it were forced by unions, forcing a two-day weekend stops people from working more.

b) paid holiday

Same; not everyone wants paid holidays as opposed to getting more money in their pockets.

c) minimum wage

The minimum wage stops less skilled people from working; this especially affects blacks and teenagers. I see the minimum wage as a negative effect of unions (nobody wants their job to be replaced by a cheaper worker).

d) Again, not everyone wants to work an 8-hour day. Poor people want to work more and other people want to work in different schedules (like a 3 day week).

It is not clear to me why a), b), and d) can't be achieved without unions if people wanted those 3.

I have no problem with people having a), b), and d) voluntarily and unions persuading people and employers for those causes; but I don't want workers to be forced to have those three (there's no free lunch--these worker "rights" come at the expense of the worker's salary).

<comment><USER65> Sorry but this comment is just incredibly stupid. You (probably) have the right to free speech but you aren't forced to spew bile constantly. You might have the right to bear arms but you wouldn't be forced to carry an AR-15 24/7\. Having the right to something means it can't be taken from you, not that you can't give it up. I worked as a chef for many years and many workers rights (particularly the EU working directive) are simply incompatible with the industry. Does this mean I was unable to work? Did the industry collapse? No. I just signed a waiver each time I started a new job.

c) Is actually an interesting subject and personally I do not agree with having a minimum wage and I feel that the purpose of introducing it was to undermine unions. There is a lot more to say about min wage but this comment thread is probably not the place for it. The rest of your post is, objectively, nonsense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> Wowza, maybe they do have a problem. I'm not sure I agree with all of the complaints there but it does seem they have at least some genuine issues that should be addressed.

Just being completely honest, this reinforces my general opinion to be very cautious around females, avoiding it where possible is probably a wise idea.

<comment><USER35> I don't see any way that this comment can be called civil, and you are not welcome to break the HN guidelines when commenting here. No more of this, please.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html)

We detached this subthread from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13197217](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13197217) and marked it off-topic.

<comment><USER68> Which guideline, flamewar?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> > I don't believe you can prove anything

Go do some math proofs and report back

<comment><USER70> Math proofs rely on arbitrarily chosen axioms; tps5 describes a similarly arbitrary approach to reasoning, e.g.:

> Someone might say "I know she is lying because she used this term which > liars always use plus I read this story about a woman making up harassment > charges to elicit sympathy."

Using a mathematical approach, maybe they started from an axiom that liars use specific terms which out them as such. Then after several theorems and lemmas, they managed to establish what that specific term is. Without the guarantees given by the axiom, all the knowledge they managed to build upon it is dubious.

The problem with axioms is that they fall outside of the "purity" of maths - they're basically "something a bunch of people agree on". When you scale that to billions of people, it tends to fall apart(also evidenced in maths, where there's lots of questions which set of axioms to use as the foundation for a specific branch). Very mushy.

<comment><USER69> Meant that as a joke, mate. Humor isn't known for traveling well on the web.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> Always remember: HR IS THERE TO PROTECT THE COMPANY. NOT YOU.

<comment><USER35> Please don't use all caps for emphasis.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> Calling Apple one of the best engineering teams is little much, don't you think?

<comment><USER35> We detached this subthread from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13192518](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13192518) and marked it off-topic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> > I don't mean to discount your experience, but honestly I don't feel like > this is the whole story.

Found the most HN comment I'll see all day.

<comment><USER35> Please don't do this here. Even if you correctly interpreted that comment, the fact that some people litter in the town square doesn't mean you should too.

We detached this subthread from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13196109](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13196109) and marked it off-topic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> Lots of down votes because of uncomfortable truth? I've seen this happen a few times and the only thing you need to do is honestly apply feminist values to all people without discriminating to start condemning it.

It's like asking for respect for getting addicted to pills by pharmaceutical industries because that's a part of American culture. Maybe some criticism would be in place despite the "it's our culture" thing?

But do _not_ harass every Indian person you can find about it!

I've had many fine coworkers from India working in the US or from India in the past and I can't imagine harassing them about this.

<comment><USER75> I would say it has downvotes because it's at best tangentially related and has some weird framing: it frames person A who gets feelings for person B as a victim when person B decides not to marry them.

Arranged marriage seems pretty horrible, but in talking to an indian coworker recently, they commented that having to find your partner seemed pretty horrible to them. I really don't see any compelling parallels to pharmaceutical addiction. As someone who is neither religious nor inclined towards marriage, Baptist vs. Anabaptist seems like a more reasonable comparison.

<comment><USER74> > Arranged marriage seems pretty horrible, but in talking to an indian > coworker recently, they commented that having to find your partner seemed > pretty horrible to them

It's the part where people are forced where they don't want to that I don't like. There's plenty of people married to someone introduced by their parents. You should be able to take another path when you want to.

<comment><AUTHOR> arranged marriages are usually family introductions and rarely forced. the way they limit choice is by constraining potential partners to your own caste or community, to the supreme thrill of family conservatives who regard that as "respectable". if you're american, you're talking about a society that places a lot of importance on self - not the case in other societies. in a lot of indian families, family comes first, not the individual.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> When the word "harassment" appears, there's an 80% chance it's bs. Thanks, sjws.

<comment><USER77> This account has been posting primarily uncivil or unsubstantive comments, and we ban accounts that proceed like this. Please (re-)read the guidelines:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> The "No Meaningful Process" is shocking in a company of Apples size - in the UK they would get the book thrown at them at a tribunal for that.

Sounds like Her boss and Hr failed I wonder if things Like brexit and Trump have made closet racists fell they can be more open

<comment><USER77> We're all trying to have as civil and substantive a discussion as we can here, and this is about as active as one can get in inviting an political flamewar. Please don't do this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER79> How typical, HR that doesn't give a shit about the employees. And if you are in HR and reading this, and crying tears right now over this comment, tough shit. I don't care.

<comment><USER35> I don't doubt that you have reason to say this based on experience, but if you want to comment on HN, please give us the reason and experience part, not the rant. Comments here should improve the level of discussion, not degrade it further.

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> >woman and minority in tech

its a bit of stretch to call Indians a minority in tech, if anything we are vastly over-represented by any standard.

<comment><USER81> > we are vastly over-represented by any standard.

Population India in 2013 : 1.3 billion

Number of Indians in the technology sector = ?

Lets be generous and say that all Indians in the USA work in the tech sector. That would be 2 million. Then lets be even more generous and add the entire population of Bangalore, 4 million as tech workers. 6E6/1.3E9 = 0.4 percent.

That's a simple standard showing that you are a minority and under-represented on a global level.

<comment><USER82> Considering the entire population of India is an absurd premise when discussing Asian-Indian representation in the US tech sector. Asian-Indians make up about 1% of the US population - I don't know how many work in tech in the USA, but I can guarantee you it's a greater share than 1%.

<comment><USER83> > I can guarantee you it's a greater share than 1%

What's that have to do with not being a minority?

<comment><USER80> 'minority in tech' <\-- phrase in question.

<comment><AUTHOR> woman = minority</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Year That Made Me: Kulveer Taggar - <AUTHOR> http://davidlanger.co.uk/2009/01/23/the-year-that-made-me-kulveer-taggar/ <comment><USER3> Ahhh good ol' Kulveer. Time to revisit my old comment from 292 days ago:

\---- As the first poster said, don't believe everything you read. The media is all about hype and thousandaires don't roll off the page.

The details: the acquisition price was $5 Million which was made up of $2 Million Cash and $3 Million Stock.

There were 3 founders, Harjeet Taggar, Kulveer Taggar, Patrick Collison. Each founder held 20.89% of the company at the time of sale. YCombinator held 4.38%. Paul Graham personally held 0.96%.

20.89% of $5 Million is $1,044,500. Of course they only have 40% of that in cash and the other 60% is in stock. The stock was $2.69 the day the deal closed. It's now trading at $2.40. If they still have their shares, they are worth 10% less which is a loss of $62,670.

That is all before tax. Factor in capital gains tax of 10-15% before the stock drop and you are already out of millionaire territory.

On an unrelated note, each of the founders are now making a base salary $100,000 at Communicate.com. This does not include bonuses, options, etc.

Source: [http://www.edgar- online.com/bin/cobrand/?doc=A-1108630-00011...](http://www.edgar- online.com/bin/cobrand/?doc=A-1108630-00011..).

\----

So: Cash (40%): $1,044,500 * 40% = $417,800

Stock (60%): March 25, 2008- LIVC 2.69 $1,044,500 * 60% = $626,700 $626,700 / 2.69 = 232,974 Shares

January 23, 2009 - LIVC 0.41 232,974 * 0.41 = $95,519

"to dot-com millions in Silicon Valley - all in just over a year" - <USER2>

Yeah right. I hope he sold his shares in March, cause your stock is down 83% and that means he made barely over $500k, before tax!

<comment><USER4> This makes me more interested in how he was able to convince Sacca and Buchheit to be on board.

<comment><USER5> Also, what happened to the investment of 180,000 GBP?

<comment><USER6> It was probably spent on Boso. Look at boso.com, they had a big team.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The sad thing is, they didn't seem to make something people wanted...

So I don't see there being any useful advice here, apart from maybe "Get to know lots of people, one of which might buy your co. regardless of its merit".

Also the whole saga reminds me of the sad days toward the end of the dotcom bubble, when teenagers were making 'startups', without product, and planning on an exit as soon as possible.

As for live current, just because you own cricket.com, doesn't mean you have any traffic going to it. Premium domain names are just ego trips...

<comment><USER8> _As for live current, just because you own cricket.com, doesn't mean you have any traffic going to it. Premium domain names are just ego trips..._

do you have any data to support that assertion?

<comment><USER7> Just going by public traffic numbers - traffic to cricket.com seems negligible when up against cricbuzz.com cricinfo.com etc.

You know what's also quite telling, for example here <http://blog.harjtaggar.com/?p=43>

You don't even mention the product or your users. It's as if they are an afterthought. Seems to all be about the networking shmoozing etc

And then in the acquisition there's spin to suggest that auctomatic is somehow relevant to affiliate marketing or something... it's simply bizarre.

(Don't mean this as an attack, it just seemed to me a completely surreal situation).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The interview rehashes the founder narrative and nothing on the really interesting things:

1) How were you able to convince Evan Williams to be an adviser initially?

2) Why was it that you were able to raise 180,000 pounds (about US$240k) but it was a YC seed round that got you to come to Silicon Valley?

3) What were your strategies in wooing the likes of Paul Buchheit and Chris Sacca?

<comment><USER9> Why not read their blogs?

Chris Sacca writes it in his own words why... [http://www.whatisleft.org/lookie_here/2008/03/thanks-to- auct...](http://www.whatisleft.org/lookie_here/2008/03/thanks-to-aucto.html) ...and elsewhere.

Basicially, to me, it reads because they were passionate about what they were doing (passion), would not let anything stop them (ambition), were able to hack/get things done quickly and efficiently and had some great previous accomplishments (talent, focus, customer care), and were smart.

So, if you possess these qualities, and have a likable-personality, then chances you could woo the Bucheits and Saccas et al of the world (if that is what you desire). Why not?

Otherwise, just get on with building your things, and if it is really something people want, then A) you will get attention this way and B) hopefully make enough cash too to not care about wooing others (maybe I am wrong, but to me it seems people woo only when they want cash/advice/similar rather then pursue friendships because you like each other etc.) :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Sadly, it sounds like Live Current was not the right company to sell to (or taking their stock was not the right way to sell to them):

<http://finance.google.com/finance?q=live+current>

I wonder how many startups succeed even if they're attached to a sinking parent company.

</comment><comment><USER11> This is not a rags to riches stories. This is the story of how a guy with a silver spoon rose to get a golden spoon.

I'm not saying it's bad, but it's just not too helpful to those who did not start off with such good cards.

<comment><USER10> I didn't notice that. He went to a good school and got a good job, but I don't think he inherited either.

And in a sense, it's more inspiring, since he's giving up a six-figure job to start something new, while most of us would be giving up significantly less.

<comment><USER4> Not to comment on this particular incident since I don't know Taggar, but I completely disagree.

Someone with good job prospects--be it through education or pedigree-- giving up a high paying job to be an entrepreneur isn't relinquishing their management of risk. They can always get another high paying job.

A kid that has nothing to begin with and turned it into something. That is inspiring. That is why rags to riches is a literary device.

<comment><USER10> _A kid that has nothing to begin with and turned it into something. That is inspiring. That is why rags to riches is a literary device._

I suspect, but cannot prove, that people who start startups are those who could succeed in other fields, but turn down the steady paycheck for the chance to do their own thing. There certainly are people who started a company because Microsoft wouldn't hire them, but there are plenty more who were hired by Microsoft and realized that they could capture more of the benefits of what they were doing if they set out on their own. Rags-to-riches is a literary device because big-paycheck to big-IPO-payday is not quite so compelling -- and because there's a bigger audience of people who want to believe, and want to be told to believe, that they can succeed despite prior failures.

 _They can always get another high paying job._

But they can't get back the time they lost, and when that time is worth six figures with a high growth rate, that's a huge cost. In one of his essays, Paul Graham made the point that starting a startup is just barely more expensive than being unemployed -- the flip side of which is that it's not such a huge risk to start one, if you're unemployed. If you do have a job, it's more of a sacrifice.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Decades-Old Code Is Putting Millions of Critical Devices at Risk - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/urgent-11-ipnet-vulnerable-devices/ <comment><USER2> Good to see that the mitigation strategy doesn't involve specifically patching all affected devices (an impossible task), but takes the more sensible route of creating tighter controls on the network to begin with. A bit reminiscent of the 2FA revolution -- it seems like VPNs could bear to enjoy some mainstream attention.</comment>


Genetic edge-case in sexual development - <AUTHOR> http://www.medhelp.org/ais/articles/maria.htm

<comment><USER2> Doesn't this kind of person put lie to the easy "marriage is between a man and a woman" viewpoint by blurring the distinction between "man" and "woman"? According to the article, this condition isn't even all that rare.

Let's not even get started thinking about the warlike Xambia in the New Guinea highlands, or the guevedoces of Dominican Republic (<http://www.usrf.org/news/010308-guevedoces.html>).

The boundaries between genders, even at a physical level, seem pretty porous.

<comment><USER3> Marriage laws have plenty of logical issues even without this kind of issue. Can a woman who was born a man marry another woman?

[http://www.texastribune.org/blogs/post/2010/may/04/tribblog-...](http://www.texastribune.org/blogs/post/2010/may/04/tribblog- ag-asked-rule-transgender-marriage/)

<comment><USER4> Sure, why not. As long as they're both of age and it is consensual.

<comment><USER5> I think people like the grandparent are looking for technical reasons to allow this sort of marriage under the current statutes. Of course anyone should be able to marry anyone else -- but the legal framework doesn't exist for that yet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRY_gene>

</comment><comment><USER7> So... is she allowed to compete?

</comment><comment><USER8> same article, with picture: <http://www.aissg.org/articles/MARIA.HTM></comment>


Is F8 being used for phishing? - <AUTHOR> http://laserlike.com/2008/08/24/is-f8-being-used-for-phishing/

<comment><USER2> F8 is Facebook's developer conference, not their platform. Their platform, surprisingly enough, is called Facebook Platform.

<comment><AUTHOR> I stand corrected. Thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I don't see any evidence being provided for the Facebook platform being used to help spammers, other than anecdotal evidence of people changing their login credentials and still being seen to send spam.

I think it would be interesting if it were shown that opening the platform directly led to exploits being used for spam, but this article doesn't seem to have any actual evidence. It's entirely speculative.

</comment><comment><USER4> I remember when MySpace first started getting really spammy. If the consumers have moved to Facebook, eventually the spammers will figure out a way to follow. Check out this BBC piece on the ease of creating a phishing application: [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/7375772.s...](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/7375772.stm)

</comment><comment><USER5> F8 = FB = facebook?

</comment><comment><USER6> This is a major issue for Facebook. I've noticed that I'm getting more spam from friends also.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> F8 is Facebook's (FB) developer platform. The intent was to question if F8 opened a hole for phishers / spammers.</comment>


UK Hacker News meetup confirmed for Friday November 30th - <AUTHOR>

Hi I've emailed the final details round to everyone who replied.
Should be a great night - there are 25 people coming from various parts of the UK, some bringing demos of their projects.
To those who weren't able to make the 30th we'll hopefully do another meetup in the New Year. Sorry you weren't able to make this one.
If you didn't see the earlier thread (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=80970) and want to come just email me (founders at songkick).

<comment><USER2> I'm looking forward to it. See you guys there.

</comment><comment><USER3> Did anyone else know about the London Startup Weekend?

<http://london.startupweekend.com/>

It's taking place over the same weekend - I wonder if we can still jump on in after Tayyabs...</comment>


Willow Garage Creates Awesome Open Source Telepresence Robots (video) - <AUTHOR> http://singularityhub.com/2010/02/04/willow-garage-creates-awesome-open-source-telepresence-robots-video/

<comment><USER2> But, can they do my laundry?</comment>


Microsoft takes on Netlify, Vercel with static web app publishing - <AUTHOR> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/learn/modules/publish-app-service-static-web-app-api/ <comment><USER2> Is there a better link to the product and its features instead of a tutorial?

<comment><AUTHOR> This is the one I found, sorry :/ But it looks like pretty close feature parity with Netlify and Vercel.

<comment><USER3> You shouldn't editorialize the title like you did.

If sctb or dang see this thread and could change it -

Static Web Apps from Azure [https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/app- service/stati...](https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/app- service/static/) would certainly be a better description.

<comment><AUTHOR> Why shouldn't one do that? I found this to be the best description and I used it. Isn't this the way forums work?

<comment><USER3> It could very well be the best description, title mentions names of 2 companies. Why not other? You see it becomes to pedantic to fast when everyone puts their own title after their liking.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

"Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize. "

<comment><AUTHOR> Gotcha! Wasn't really aware of this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Could this be "geocities" anew?

</comment><comment><USER5> Seems like more big company crowding into niches innovated on by smaller players because they can't come up with innovation of their own. We need new antitrust laws to prevent the degree of capital and labor accumulation that hinder innovation and sustained healthy competition.

<comment><USER6> Seems like most companies have one of these, including Google (Firebase Hosting + Functions). It seems like a common platform, however I always have trouble imagining what is the use case, especially in scalability (Function/Lambda is fine for small projects, but feels like it's not widely scalable and still has a lot or limitations)

<comment><AUTHOR> The best way to think about lambda at scale is as "glue layer" that is a way to call your backend (e.g. on GCP/AWS). But as you're getting started, you can just do all the functionality on serverless, w/o dealing with deploys, etc.

<comment><USER6> What would be the benefits vs hitting your API directly? (Having a "normal" API server)

<comment><USER7> It has some value add features, like authentication that you don't have to handle. It's also an autoscaling API layer if all it needs to do is query several of your backend services. It's probably less useful if you have a monolithic app so all the requests are just passed through, unless you use a lot of the value adds.

I'm not a Lambda expert though, there might be things I missed.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Are narwhals real - Help convince a non-believer - <AUTHOR> http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/5492/are-narwhals-real

<comment><USER2> Hm, why is this relevant to Hacker News? :\</comment>