Why burn bridges?
Edit: this is a legitimate question, sorry haters
I cannot help but rootlessly imagine the sifi-like battle royal among them! The climax would be that Bezos flying around in his robot  invented by an mysterious teen AI hacker, and that's why Amazon yet to porch any of these shy stars.
Take a seat and have some popcorn!
Edit: Different Bengio :-(
At the moment, we don't know either of these assumptions.
Has Google provided any evidence of substance regarding the exfiltration of data? The only thing I found is that she queried her own email inbox to find emails where her former coworker was discriminated against: https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/19/22292011/google-second-et...
I couldn't find anything online about Gebru or Mitchell actually getting offers, although IIRC Gebru said she has no interest in industry right now anyway.
from your link
"... included the exfiltration of confidential business-sensitive documents and private data of other employees,” Google said in a statement to Axios about Mitchell’s firing."
if Google is making such a statement in such a public way and without evidence, the employee i'd suppose has a good chance of a settlement of a lifetime.
This does seem like it’s straightforward, if valid. It may take time, but the longer it drags on, the higher the monetary damages.
This is also something where you retain an attorney and go about your life. It’s not like I take an active role in a defamation lawsuit.
Of course it’s not simple, but I think GP’s post is right in that were Google’s public statements wrong, it would be a big settlement. Thus it seems to me that they know what they said and make accurate statements.
Weirdly, I do feel some sense of loyalty to some companies and brands - usually stemming from a positive childhood experience. This extends to my first employer: Microsoft. Even though I haven’t worked there for 5 years I still feel as though I owe them for launching my career (making connections, great resume material, etc) and because (all things considered) I think they treated me right - that’s got to be worth something, surely?
Given that sort of a conflict can occur, exactly where does this moral obligation stem from?
that's somewhere between loyalty and patronage. A moral obligation is to speak the truth, regardless if someone treated you well or not.
Have loyalty for individuals, and sometimes even teams, but never ever ever ever feel loyalty for a corporation.
>Have loyalty for individuals, and sometimes even teams, but never ever ever ever feel loyalty for a corporation.
That's exactly what an individual would say!
Is it OK to feel loyalty for a nation, then? Considering membership in one is involuntary - and that corporations don't, as a rule, exercise a monopoly on violence against their employees?
>Corporations are not people [...] from a "conscious being" perspective.
>If it helped you in some way, it wasn't intentionally; it just happened that its own interests overlapped with your own for a blip in time.
That depends on your perspective on consciousness and intentionality. I understand that the subject is not open to debate for the majority of individuals here, so I won't bore you with elaborations.
Suffice to say, if you weren't aware of the varying opinions on those, you could start by googling the "Chinese brain" thought experiment.
>But the nanosecond that its interests run contrary to yours, it will swiftly trample you into the ground and will be incapable of feeling sorry about it.
This can be said for sufficiently many individuals that we have a designation for them: psychopaths.
When an individual acts like this, we go out of our way to reproach them. When a corporation does this, it's normal value maximization. A double standard, maybe?
Moreover, humans have kept their place on top of the food pyramid for so long because corporations didn't have nanosecond-scale temporal resolution. However, thanks to the IT community's efforts, this is subject to change.
Einstein had some rather famous words on the topic in (his 1931 essay, Mein Weltbild)[https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/37851/did-einst...]:
> “He who joyfully marches to music rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.”
Einstein's political and social views evolved throughout his life, something he had in common with many highly intelligent people. As a result, it is possible to quote-mine Einstein to back up almost any point you care to make. This is a perfect example.
Yes, and the people who do so tend to presume just that.
But if you're being honest about the man and his legacy, I think one should probably stick with his latter-life views.
Sure. But my point is that the quote in question was from 1931, only one year before he was forced to flee Germany with a price on his head. Einstein found that while it was easy enough to dismiss national loyalty as an unpleasant artifact of the past, national governments weren't willing to dismiss racism and prejudice in the bargain. Once he understood that whoever got the Bomb first was going to win the war, it was necessary for him to pick a side, and he did just that.
After the war was won by the good guys, there was plenty of time for second-guessing and self-flagellation, and he did his share of that, too. He had the luxury of pacifism in 1951 just as he did in 1931.
...insofar as gratitude and goodwill are interchangeable. Hmm, I wonder what the exchange-rate is...
Why should the employee give 2 weeks notice but the employer can unemploy you between 11am and noon? I know it’s professional. So, let’s do the professional thing - give me 2 weeks of notice or 2 weeks of pay if you’re concerned about security.
There are all kinds of asymmetries. 55 mins to interview the candidate, btw do you have any questions for us? You’ve got 5 mins.
What i never understand though, is companies forcing employees to train their replacements, after which they are fired.
Perhaps companies ought to publicize their employees records or performance, if only limited to qualitative ones, so that during quit time, employees are not blackmailed for getting a good record of employment.
I am loyal to myself as an employee unless my equity is so significant that I am required to consider myself an owner.
It's like a financial newspaper writing about bulls struggling to beat the bears, while obviously no one wants to pay higher prices or selling at lower prices: nobody is winning or losing, it's just people buying or selling along demand and offer lines, quite chaotically. But, seeing the market as a permanent war between bulls (who would want to buy at higher prices for some reason) and bears (who would want to sell low) makes for an amusing entertainment in an otherwise bland day.
Financial news is like Facebook: if it’s free then you’re the product.