The decline of Google

Originally, Google was famous for hiring the very smartest engineers, and this was reflected in the superiority of its products. Originally, it looked as if Google’s massive supercomputer was doing extraordinary things, that one would not expect of a mere computer.

And the very smartest engineers were all male and mostly white, and those of them that were not white were east Asian.

As Google became more and more intimate with the government, and in particular the NSA, it found it necessary to affirmatively hire women. (I conjecture that they managed to persuade someone to count east Asians as minorities. Either that or they had lots of their white engineers declare themselves black or Hispanic, much as some of their male engineers have declared themselves female.)

And it found it necessary to fire anyone who openly doubted that affirmatively hiring women was a good idea.

These women tended to be excluded from the work of the real programmers, because they could not do it, could not understand it, and did not much like it.

Google had an elaborate system of metrics to try to measure how people and teams performed, and these metrics showed that the women were no good. Therefore the metrics were sexist, since they had disparate impact. They were replaced by non sexist metrics, which metrics showed that women are wonderful. Metrics that show advantage men are disparate impact. Metrics that show advantage women are just a reflection of the fact that women are wonderful.

Sexist males were laid off, where sexism was largely manifested by doing work that females could not understand or participate in. Which is to say, they laid off their smartest males, in part because smartness tends to exclude women, in part because the new metrics that showed that women are wonderful also showed that their smartest people were doing a really bad job.

Some time ago, Google tried to leverage its existing institutions for billing large numbers of advertisers, and paying large numbers of content providers to carry advertising, into Google Wallet, a competitor to PayPal and the like. This failed dismally, and they are now retreating from the field. Google maps has been getting steadily worse. Looks as if Google is now dominated by incompetent engineers who can no longer produce great products.

Thus dies Silicon Valley.

97 Responses to “The decline of Google”

  1. Adolf the anti-White says:

    I’ve often said that I’m a male-presenting transgender lesbian. Attracted to women, and I look and act like a man. But I’m a woman (and thus a lesbian).

    Also, I’m black. Not sure I can justify that.

    My dad once went to Mexico. Maybe I can be Hispanic?

  2. Lex Corvus says:

    It may not be easy to justify calling yourself black, but all H. sapiens have African ancestry, so any U.S. citizen can plausibly identify as African-American.

    • Chris B says:

      “so any U.S. citizen can plausibly identify as African-American.” this all depends on how the categories are defined. Afro american refers really to those who have ancestry from the current inhabitants with morphological features that are black. This is very simple. trying to muddy definitions and fudge patterns is a general pernicious tactic of leftists and anthropologists. For purposes of everyday life, trying to claim that everyone originated in Africa ergo we are all plausibly African is retarded. Why stop there? why not declare us all homo erectus? or whatever mammal bipedal humans originated from?
      the current black populations of africa have been subject to different selection pressure since all non african populations left. This includes seperate admixture from neanderthals (classed as seperate species no?)for non sub saharan people.
      So yes. All can claim ultimate ancestry from africa, but this is largely meaningless and designed to halt looking into the reality of the situation.

      • Orthodox says:

        How hard is it to fake a DNA ancestry test? If Google or any company was caught doubting your race, you could easily turn it into a SJW shitstorm and even normal people would think a company digging into your DNA is way over the line.

        just sayin’

        • Lars Grobian says:

          SJWs don’t have principles, they have allies. Yes, they’re basically mindless robots, but their prime directive isn’t what you seem to think.

          They’re not going to throw any tantrums for your or my benefit. A retarded hate-crazed left-wing dingbat can pretend to be an Indian all day long. A sane productive normal American isn’t going to get much help from those clowns.

        • Stephen W says:

          That wont work suddenly a SJW knows what race is when they are trying to fill quotas and discriminate against white people. Try to subvert there subversion and they will do all they can to destroy you.

    • peppermint says:

      a sand-African-American is what you get when you combine average American DNA with average African DNA. The appellation sand- comes from the place where this mixing is believed to have occurred.

  3. k says:

    Google’s quality issues, to me, started around 2009. That’s when all the weird UX decisions and terrible code started popping up.

  4. […] breaking: Jim on the Decline of Google. Also Obama Gets the Finger. LOL. We’re so […]

  5. Peter Blood says:

    I’m embarrassed for all the normal tech guys who have to talk about a gay operating system called “Lollipop” full of clownish rainbow colors. And Nexus 6 and Nexus 9: 69! So gay!

  6. Orthodox says:

    In China, a company pays shorter security guards doing the same exact jobs less money because people feel safer with bigger guards. I’ve seen advertisements for tourism/hospitality/waitress specifying cup sizes for women.

  7. Dr. Faust says:

    It is all a measure of how much money the state can tax everyone. For men there is no option. They work or collect disability. Women in the workforce is promoted not because it does women well but because their labor can be taxed.

    It’s all tax incentivised Propaganda. Propaganda exists to encourage the unnatural. You can be certain girls aren’t strong because of how often they need to be told that they are. You can be certain girls don’t belong in programming, science, or math because they need endless amounts of inducement to even attempt it. Likewise, there is no propaganda needed to convince young boys to pursue sex. There are programs of propaganda to encourage teen abstinence but not the opposite. The idea would be absurd because everyone knows that is something natural to teens.

    Women are miserable and growing more miserable as they are pushed further and further away from a natural state. They will continue to create more mental illness in women from anxiety to histrionic until some type of reset.

  8. outsider says:

    The USA is probably finished.
    The only hope to reverse the decline would be something as radical as the creation of a virtual nation, or software to hypnotically inject ideas into the brain. Something completely new not yet imagined.
    In other words manknd is probably finished.

  9. I have worked at Google as an engineer for many years. What you’ve written does not match my experience at all.

    I am not aware that Google had “an elaborate set of metrics to try to measure how people and teams performed.” Certainly if we did it would be very remarkable, since no one else has ever produced an objective measurement of programmer productivity.

    I am also unaware that Google laid off its smartest males.

    Google is full of smart people, and being smart, they are good at doublethink. Executives constantly bemoan the lack of females in software engineering and the low proportion of women in female management. Everyone is either a progressive or, like me, keeps quiet.

    But … I have direct experience in hiring and promotions. Women and minorities are not given special treatment. There are no quotas. People are hired and promoted on merit.

    Google is certainly showing worrisome signs of decline. I have noticed that Maps quality is awful. Weather search is worse. (I use Bing for weather.) Google Wallet cannot be taken as a sign of decline, because Google Wallet never in its 8-year history succeeded in doing much of anything besides power Google’s own commerce.

    Google is orders of magnitude bigger than when it was the hottest company in tech. So the decline is probably a coordination problem. Google does not have good executive management. The executives they hire from the outside don’t get the culture, and are not successful. Nor is Google good at growing executives from within.

    • jim says:

      There are, or very recently were, two hiring channels for engineers. In one channel, people were hired on merit, and, disturbingly, only white males and some east Asian males were hired.

      To remedy this, an affirmative action hiring channel was set up, which theoretically functioned to hire women, blacks, and Hispanics, (no white male engineers allowed) but in practice hired primarily white women, rarely hiring blacks and Hispanics.

      War against “sexism” and “sexual harassment” ensued, which you may think purged only the most sexist, but which I think purged primarily the smartest, no matter how innocent they were of any sexist thought, due to failure of affirmative action hires to fit in with or work with smart people.

      • I’m sorry, but this does not match my experience at all. Are you in touch with other Google employees? Please feel free to email me if there are details you’d prefer not to discuss in public.

        “””
        To remedy this, an affirmative action hiring channel was set up, which theoretically functioned to hire women, blacks, and Hispanics, (no white male engineers allowed) but in practice hired primarily white women, rarely hiring blacks and Hispanics.
        “””

        Affirmative action consists of giving NAMs more chances — the recruiters scour the world for semi-reasonable female/minority candidates, all NAMs are reviewed after the interview (non-NAMs who score badly are quietly dropped). Execs piously state that women should not hide their light under a bushel, and should nominate themselves for promotion if they are deserving.

        But. Once they get to hiring/promo committee, they have to meet the same standards as everyone else. No one has ever intimated that it was wrong for me to vote to reject a NAM candidate. When a prog is on my committee, and we reject a woman or minority, their attitude is one of general disappointment, not hostility.

        Also, the female engineers Google hires are primarily Asian, not white. They are also, for the most part, competent and pleasant to work with.

        “””
        War against “sexism” and “sexual harassment” ensued, which you may think purged only the most sexist, but which I think purged primarily the smartest, no matter how innocent they were of any sexist thought, due to failure of affirmative action hires to fit in with or work with smart people.
        “””

        I think you are out of touch with reality. I am unaware of any war whatsoever.

        You once said that if children were really starving in America, progressives would have those children on television every night for a decade. Well, Google is full of women who have been encouraged to believe that nefarious sexists are holding them back. If men actually did commit “sexual harassment” against them, and were fired, those men would be a cause celebre at Google. You would not have heard about them, but I would.

        Women do complain about sexism, but strangely, there are no specific malefactors, and the details are vague.

        • Red says:

          You haven’t seen anyone at Google fired for sexual harassment?

          • “You haven’t seen anyone at Google fired for sexual harassment?”

            No.

            I have not seen it happen, nor have I heard of such a case second-hand.

            People are not fired very often. When I knew such people, the cause was pretty obviously performance.

            There is an internal app that gives information about the rank and tenure of people who leave. So if there were an exodus of senior people doing difficult work, I would probably be aware of it.

            • jim says:

              I have not seen it happen, nor have I heard of such a case second-hand.

              There is intense concern about about a hostile work environment, yet no one gets fired for “hostility”. Odd.

              Fact is, some astonishingly able white (or east asian) heterosexual males were laid off. For reasons never made explicit.

          • >There is intense concern about about a hostile work
            >environment, yet no one gets fired for “hostility”. Odd.

            Hostile work environment is standard SJW theology.

            Google theology is that everyone has “Unconscious Biases” which prevent them from evaluating women and minorities fairly.

            It’s insane, but at least it doesn’t encourage women to file made up sexual harassment claims.

            • jim says:

              Google theology is that everyone has “Unconscious Biases” which prevent them from evaluating women and minorities fairly

              This sounds like the difference between a quota and a “channel”

              If the team’s unconscious biases cast an evil spell upon their female team members that prevent females from fully participating, sounds pretty hostile.

              Of course Google, unlike the typical social justice warrior, does not want diversity lawsuits, and discourages diversities from launching such lawsuits, but they avoid diversity lawsuits by pre-emptively getting rid of males that might cause a lawsuit, meaning males that make diversities feel bad about themselves.

              Which leads to the same result as “hostile environment” – that people get punished for crimes committed in other people’s dreams.

        • jim says:

          I’m sorry, but this does not match my experience at all. Are you in touch with other Google employees? Please feel free to email me if there are details you’d prefer not to discuss in public.

          Yes I am in touch with other Google employees, and have reason to trust them, and no reason to trust you. Which is to say, I suspect that were I to give you the information you request, this might well have bad consequences for people I care about.

          Also, the female engineers Google hires are primarily Asian, not white.

          But not, however, black or Hispanic. The primary beneficiaries of google affirmative action are females.

          They are also, for the most part, competent and pleasant to work with.

          And whosoever doubts this, loses his job.

          At the edge of the bell curve, there are simply very few competent female engineers compared to the number of competent male engineers. For the females to fit in, you have to lower the competence of male engineers. If you have the top females, and you want them to fit in, (rather than put them in the HR harem or the artist harem) you cannot afford to have the top males.

          If men actually did commit “sexual harassment” against them, and were fired, those men would be a cause celebre at Google.

          But if men committed absolutely no sexual harassment against them, but were nonetheless fired for sexual harassment accusations that no one wanted subjected to any scrutiny, that everyone wanted hushed up …

          What you are telling me is not internally consistent. You tell me that Google is struggling very hard for more females, and you tell me that no affirmative action occurs. You tell me that Googlers are required to believe in the theory that under representation of females is due to hostile environment, which is to say, due to evil witches casting evil spells against women, and you tell me that no evil witches have been found casting these evil spells.

          • Glenfilthie says:

            Yep.

            He tipped his hand when he asked for names. You should have given him the names of the social justice warriors and progs in the company!

            How typical of these mentally ill corporations too: ‘We know we suck, we know exactly which of our products suck and why…but we are at a loss as to how to fix them…!!!!’

            Tell me again that women are not involved in that predicament. And pull my other finger – it has bells on it.

          • [This is getting long, will reply in two parts.]

            “Yes I am in touch with other Google employees, and have reason to trust them, and no reason to trust you.
            Which is to say, I suspect that were I to give you the information you request, this might well have bad
            consequences for people I care about.”

            I do not want names or information that would identify them. It was stupid of me to ask, since of course there is no reason for you to trust me. It’s just that you seem to have a very garbled version of what goes on at Google.

            For instance,

            “Google had an elaborate system of metrics to try to measure how people and teams performed …”

            Google used to rate employees using a decimal scale, where 3.0 equated to adequate and 4.0 meant awesome.
            This was recently replaced with 5 buckets with names (sadly, “adequate” and “awesome” were not used).

            But the intent was not to make it easier for women/minorities to score better. (After all, reducing
            the granularity will just produce a chunkier-looking distribution.) It was recognized that the numerical score was falsely precise.

            • jim says:

              Google used to rate employees using a decimal scale, where 3.0 equated to adequate and 4.0 meant awesome.
              This was recently replaced with 5 buckets with names (sadly, “adequate” and “awesome” were not used).

              The question, however, is what goes into that scale, how people are assigned to buckets. What goes into those buckets became a question of concern by upper management when diversities wound up in the bottom bucket, whereupon they decided on a more highly scientific method of assigning people to buckets.

          • [sorry for the different commenting styles, I tried “blockquote” in angled brackets but WordPress didn’t seem to like that.]

            >>They are also, for the most part, competent
            >>and pleasant to work with.

            >And whosoever doubts this, loses his job.

            I do not have any expectation that if I were to complain, via appropriate channels, of a specific female engineer’s poor performance or difficult personality, that the result would be for me to lose my job.

            Sure, if someone were to send a mass email saying “Director Alice is terrible and only got promoted cause she has no Y chromosomes”, that person would be fired, but that’s the white collar equivalent of suicide
            by cop. Try calling out a senior exec in NrxCorp and let me know how that works for you.

            I have seen people gently suggest in “public” (i.e., internal mailing lists) that evolution selects for women to cluster around the mean. They caught some flak, but I did not notice that they were fired, nor did they
            appear a week later with a placard around their neck to make a grovelling apology.

            >At the edge of the bell curve, there are simply very few
            >competent female engineers compared to
            >the number of competent male engineers.

            This is true. That is why the top engineers, the ones who have made a tremendous difference at Google, are all male.

            However most of the people we hire are not so far on the edge, at say 1 standard deviation above average rather than 2 or 3. And you can find competent Asian and white women engineers in that population.

            >For the females to fit in, you have to lower the competence of
            >male engineers. If you have the top females, and you want
            >them to fit in, (rather than put them in the HR harem or the
            >artist harem) you cannot afford to have the top males.

            Women enter the lower ranks and do not get promoted. People wring their hands and moan about this, but no one has ever suggested the Harrison Bergeron solution.

            >>If men actually did commit sexual harassment against them,
            >>and were fired, those men would be a cause celebre at Google.

            >But if men committed absolutely no sexual harassment against them,
            >but were nonetheless fired for sexual harassment accusations that
            >no one wanted subjected to any scrutiny, that everyone wanted hushed up …

            Shrug. I don’t have access to secret HR files. I can’t prove a negative. But see my reply to Red above.

            >What you are telling me is not internally consistent. You tell me
            >that Google is struggling very hard for more females, and you tell
            >me that no affirmative action occurs.

            I told you that affirmative action is applied at the sourcing phase but not when judging performance.

            It’s also likely that women get better offers, especially if there are competing offers.

            >You tell me that Googlers are required to believe in the
            >theory that under representation of females
            >is due to hostile environment, which is to say, due to evil
            >witches casting evil spells against women,
            >and you tell me that no evil witches have been found
            >casting these evil spells.

            Googlers are not “required to believe in theories”. An example:

            Every week there is a company meeting, and one week the subject was Diversity.

            Apparently the attendance was 20% of usual. I know this because SJW’s complained about the awful people who didn’t show up, but no executive complained, and there was not the slightest intimation
            that failing to attend would be hazardous to one’s career.

            Google is absurdly politicized by comparison with every other company I’ve worked for.

            (For instance, you *would* be in pretty big trouble if you said you opposed gay marriage on moral grounds. At the very least you would be mocked and harassed mercilessly by your fellow employees.)

            But this is still nowhere near as politicized as, say, academia. Most engineers are just not very political. They want people to be treated fairly and consistently. My guess is that most Googlers are not very
            left-wing and just keep their heads down and don’t make trouble for themselves.

            Or they view progressivism as an ideal which cannot be achieved in the real world, which makes them feel a little guilty, and then they get on with their lives.

            Note that Google has no quotas for employee ratings or promotions, and has more openings than it can hire for.

            So the “affirmative action” is not to hire Alice instead of Bob. It’s to hire Bob, and also look under all the rocks and behind every tree for
            an Alice to hire. This is still unfair to Bob, but not grossly so, and therefore most people can let it slide.

            I will say it again: I think you have a rather distorted view of Google. Perhaps Google will get there, in 5 or 10 more years; certainly the politicization has gotten worse in the time that I’ve been there.
            But for now most of the opinion policing is informal, by fellow employees on internal social networks.

            Also: if Google really was full-on Khmer Rouge lets-assemble-a-circular-firing-squad loony tunes, do you really think they’d be sitting on $50 billion in cash?

            • jim says:

              I do not have any expectation that if I were to complain, via appropriate channels, of a specific female engineer’s poor performance or difficult personality, that the result would be for me to lose my job.

              And yet everyone believes, or purports to believe, that the reason for female under representation is due to that horrid hostile work environment – evil misogynistic spells cast by evil witches. The authorities sincerely believe in evil witchcraft, or fake sincerity so deeply they might as well be sincere, yet strangely, according to you, are not inclined to unreasonably suspect anyone of being an evil witch casting these evil misogynistic spells.

              Women enter the lower ranks and do not get promoted. People wring their hands and moan about this, but no one has ever suggested the Harrison Bergeron solution.

              Well of course no one admits to the Harrison Bergeron solution, since to do so would admit what is denied – that females are, on average inferior in male fields, just as men are rather poor at bearing babies.

              If inequality is the result of evil spells cast by white males, and you see inequality right in front of you, then obviously the white male is casting evil spells, and must be punished. And so, pretty soon, no more inequality. You don’t admit you are applying the Harrison Bergeron solution, you don’t even know you are applying the Harrison Bergeron solution. You think you have gotten rid of the evil witches that were casting the evil spells, when in reality you have gotten rid of those white heterosexual males that were embarrassingly competent.

              The Harrison Bergeron solution, leveling downwards, has quite visibly been applied in academia – stuff such as analogies was taken out of the SAT because they “under predicted female and minority performance” – which is to say, made the affirmative action applied to females and minorities embarrassingly visible. The SAT and academic course content was dumbed down to “level the playing field”. (LSAT still tests for ability, but the fraction of Ivy leaguers selected on the basis of LSAT is tiny and getting ever tinier)

              Because the difference between groups is more visible at the extremes, if you take the best 0.1% of group A, and the best 0.1% of group B, the difference between group A and group B is going to be horrifyingly and painfully visible. So you stop doing that – meaning you either stop affirmative actioning the inferior group, or you get rid of the best of the superior group.

              In the story “Harrison Bergeron” the solution of actually ensuring equal ability by leveling ability downwards was openly and explicitly applied. In real life, is, for obviously reasons, is applied covertly and is denied, since, after all, everyone is created equal, and to openly level downwards would admit that not all are created equal.

              For instance, you *would* be in pretty big trouble if you said you opposed gay marriage on moral grounds. At the very least you would be mocked and harassed mercilessly by your fellow employees

              And yet 2008 Obama opposed gay marriage on moral grounds. From which I conclude that in 2008, pretty close to 100% of Google engineers felt that gay marriage was at least a little bit creepy, because a gay couple normally wings each other to pick up little boys and spread disease, rather than having monogamous sex with each other, while in 2012, absolutely 100% of Google engineers believed the complete opposite.

              So I don’t think it is really “your fellow employees”. A new policy is imposed from the top down, and everyone everywhere abruptly falls into line, piously declaring not only the new line, but that they have always believed the new line, that we have always been at war with Eastasia, as parodied in Orwell’s hate week.

              So the “affirmative action” is not to hire Alice instead of Bob. It’s to hire Bob, and also look under all the rocks and behind every tree for an Alice to hire

              That is just not true. There is, or very recently was, an affirmative action hiring “channel”, which is to say, quota. Only women and males belonging to non asian minorities are interviewed for this channel, and in practice, the channel hires primarily white and east asian women. If you are interviewing a woman, the question your boss asks you is not whether any of the women or minorities qualify, but which woman or minority is best for this woman/minority position. Or that was the way it was very recently.

              Of course if you stop hiring and promoting on the basis of ability, stop using criteria that, like analogies in the SAT, “have disparate impact”, you don’t need to do that, since the supply of stupid males is roughly equal to the supply of stupid females, so possibly they have stopped doing that but that is the way it was very recently.

              Google has, or very recently had, a hiring quota (“channel”) for female and minority engineers, and to fill this quota, only females and minorities were interviewed. And the top candidates among those interviewed were hired to fill the quota, regardless of whether they were any good or not.

              They were not looking for good enough female engineers. They were looking for a certain number of female or minority engineers, regardless of ability. The interviewer had to pick the least bad of those that were interviewed, a procedure that implicitly admitted what was explicitly denied – that every female engineer hired by Google was inferior to any male engineer hired by Google.

              Note that Google has no quotas for employee ratings or promotions, and has more openings than it can hire for.

              Like Obamacare has no death panels, because the official name is something other than “death panel”.

              Google has, or recently had a “channel” for hiring a fixed number pf females and non asian minorities regardless of ability, and large numbers of ordinary engineers encountered this in interviewing diversities for the “channel”. It has a “channel” for promotions. It has no explicit quota for ratings, but rating criteria are “corrected” and “improved” until they generate the predetermined results for women and minorities. The effect of this is far worse than having a mere quota, since it means you evaluate on criteria that do not have disparate impact, much as happened in the events leading to the mortgage crisis.

            • jim says:

              I have seen people gently suggest in “public” (i.e., internal mailing lists) that evolution selects for women to cluster around the mean. T

              If you are thinking of the same man I am thinking of, he is fireproof because he claims to be a transgendered woman.

              And he is testing the limits of being fireproof, and has received a little talk.

          • [Popping this out to the top, could not reply to your latest comment.]

            >>I do not have any expectation that … to complain,
            >>.., of a specific female [engineer] … the result would be for me to lose my job.

            >…The authorities sincerely believe in evil witchcraft, or
            >fake sincerity so deeply they might as well be sincere,
            >yet strangely, according to you, are not inclined to
            >unreasonably suspect anyone of being an evil witch
            >casting these evil misogynistic spells.

            Why yes Jim, that is because they have better things to do than play politics all day. Like get their job done.

            If all managers cared about was political correctness, Google would not be slowing down. It would have come to a screeching halt and would be bleeding money and talent.

            That day may come. Or it may not. To borrow a phrase you are fond of, there is a lot of ruin in a corporation.

            >>… no one has ever suggested the Harrison Bergeron solution.

            >Well of course no one admits to the Harrison Bergeron
            >solution, since to do so
            >would admit what is denied — that females are,
            >on average inferior in male fields,
            >>just as men are rather poor at bearing babies.

            >If inequality is the result of evil spells cast by white males,
            >and you see inequality right in front of you, then obviously
            >the white male is casting evil spells, and must be
            >punished. And so, pretty soon, no more inequality.
            >You don’t admit you are applying the Harrison Bergeron
            >solution, you don’t even know you are applying the Harrison
            >Bergeron solution. You think you have gotten rid of the evil
            >witches that were casting the evil spells, when in reality you
            >have gotten rid of those white heterosexual males that
            >were embarrassingly competent.

            This is drivel. You need to stop this “if A then B, if B then C” analysis on institutions that you know nothing about, assuming that said institutions are identical to the Khmer Rouge
            or Stalin’s Politburo.

            There is zero evidence that Google’s white male engineers are being punished for making inequality visible. Even if people followed your chain of reasoning as far as B or C, they would just shrug their shoulders, mouth some pious inanities, and get on with their job.

            Most people are hypocrites when it comes to religion. Which in this case is a very good thing.

            Also HR does not have the power to get high level engineers fired by deducing that those engineers are responsible for poor performance of women. HR is weak at Google (at least compared to other corporations of its size). Again, this is a very good thing (Microsoft’s problems appear to stem in part from capture by its HR department).

            >The Harrison Bergeron solution, leveling downwards,
            >has quite visibly been applied in academia

            Yup.

            Fortunately Google is nowhere near as fucked up as academia.

            I’m going to say this again: If Google actually let SJW principles get in the way of getting shit done and making money, “Google” would not be a household word and
            they would not be sitting on a pile of money.

            >>For instance, you *would* be in pretty big trouble
            >>if you said you opposed gay marriage on
            >>moral grounds. At the very least you would be mocked
            >>and harassed mercilessly by your fellow employees

            >And yet 2008 Obama opposed gay marriage on moral
            >grounds. From which I conclude that in
            >2008, pretty close to 100% of Google engineers felt that gay
            >marriage was at least a little bit creepy, …

            I don’t know what people think inside their heads.

            However 2008 was the year of Proposition 8, which tried to outlaw gay marriage, and everyone at Google was vehemently opposed to it.

            (Also at the time I assumed Obama was lying through his teeth about his opposition to gay marriage.)

            >So I don’t think it is really “your fellow employees”.
            >A new policy is imposed from
            >the top down, and everyone everywhere abruptly falls
            >into line, piously declaring not
            >only the new line, but that they have always believed
            >the new line, that we have always
            >been at war with Eastasia, as parodied in Orwell’s hate week.

            Um, no. In addition to being false, your statement is not believable, because engineers cannot be managed by saying “do X or else”.

            >There is, or very recently was, an affirmative action
            >hiring “channel”, which is to say, quota. Only women and
            >males belonging to non asian minorities are interviewed
            >for this channel, and in practice, the channel hires primarily
            >white and east asian women.

            This is the one thing you’ve said that — as we shall see, only for the span of one paragraph — has some tenuous contact with reality.

            There certainly are channels for *recruiting* minority candidates. And it’s likely that the recruiters have quotas. Most of them are temps and are under pressure to produce.

            It’s even possible that there are side channels for hiring women who do not go through the process. I do not claim to have visibility into all of Google’s hiring processes.

            >If you are interviewing a woman, the question your
            >boss asks you is not whether any of the
            >women or minorities qualify, but which woman or
            >minority is best for this woman/minority position.
            >Or that was the way it was very recently.

            So this is where the Jim Diagnoses Google train leaves the rails, falls off a cliff, and catches fire in midair.

            MY BOSS HAS NEVER ASKED ME ANYTHING RELATED TO HIRING. Hiring (and promotions) are done by a committee selected from across all Google engineers. Managers are not involved.

            Again, it’s possible that you have garbled a Googler’s description of what recruiters do. And it’s entirely possible that there are special procedures for hiring women. However:

            – It’s very hard to analyze the extent without specific numbers. If you take five candidates and say “hire the top 40%”, that will lead to problems. If you take 100 and have a quota of at least five, not such a big deal.

            – I have seen women and minority candidates in the normal, non-quota hiring process.

            – I have interviewed over 100 people. And I have visibility into the other interviewers’ feedback (what we call the “packet”). Occasionally there have been candidates hired who scored badly with me and well with others. But I have never seen a candidate hired who did so badly with everyone that I was scratching my head wondering what happened.

            – I have not noticed a significant drop in the quality of newly hired female engineers.

            – Most people would view your proposed “side channel” as unfair and/or unusual. It’s possible that it could exist without being leaked, but I’m skeptical.

            • jim says:

              The authorities sincerely believe in evil witchcraft, or fake sincerity so deeply they might as well be sincere, yet strangely, according to you, are not inclined to unreasonably suspect anyone of being an evil witch casting these evil misogynistic spells.

              Why yes Jim, that is because they have better things to do than play politics all day. Like get their job done.

              The outcome with Google Wallet and Google maps would suggest that they are not getting their job done.

              Google also finds the time to game their search engine results politically. Aside from the notorious propensity of certain results never to be found by autocomplete, in particular certain forbidden books or vaporized personalities, there is also the fact that when you type a politically sensitive search term, like “neoreaction” there is apt to be an anomalous top search result, the top search result for Google condemns the right or praises the left, while the top search result for bing and DuckDuck go is pretty similar to the second, third, and fourth search result.

              After I wrote the above, I tested it for the result “Neoreaction”, to make sure it was still true, and, sure enough, Google’s top search result, unlike Bing and DuckDuckGo, is “rationalwiki”, a strident stream of moronic violently irrational schoolyard abuse, which incoherent spew of nonsense fails to show up in the first few results of Bing and DuckDuckGo, and is discordant with the subsequent results in Google itself.

              This is not a company where you get ahead by doing your job.

              MY BOSS HAS NEVER ASKED ME ANYTHING RELATED TO HIRING. Hiring (and promotions) are done by a committee selected from across all Google engineers. Managers are not involved.

              And when that committee is hiring for the diversity channel, it only interviews diversities. So diversities are not compared against real engineers.

              I have seen women and minority candidates in the normal, non-quota hiring process.

              And, in practice, they seldom get hired in the normal process – because, indeed it is true that your “BOSS HAS NEVER ASKED ME ANYTHING RELATED TO HIRING”

            • jim says:

              There is zero evidence that Google’s white male engineers are being punished for making inequality visible.

              If inequality is not painfully visible, white male engineers are being punished for making inequality visible. That is the major reason most firms stuff diversities into the art harem, to prevent inequality from being too painfully visible.

          • >>Why yes Jim, that is because they have better things
            >>to do than play politics all day. Like get their job done.

            >The outcome with Google Wallet and Google maps
            >would suggest that they are not getting their job done.

            Come on, this has nothing to do with politics.

            DEC went from industry leader to laying off 2/3 of its employees to being bought, in a short time.

            Microsoft used to instill terror in the rest of the industry. Now they’re a laughingstock.

            Do you think every big company’s decline is due to SJWs ruining hiring?

            >Google also finds the time to game their search
            >engine results politically…

            If you are looking for someone to defend Google up and down, sorry. One reason I created this identity was so I could grouse about my employer and Silicon Valley.

            >And, in practice, they seldom get hired in the
            >normal process — because, indeed it is true
            >that your BOSS HAS NEVER ASKED ME ANYTHING
            >RELATED TO HIRING.

            The reason that I got all shouty (which I should not have, I apologize) was that your statement

            “If you are interviewing a woman, the question your boss asks you is not whether any of the women or minorities qualify, but which woman or minority is best for this woman/minority position.”

            shows that you don’t have a very clear picture of how Google works.

            It would be like saying “I heard that women and minorities pay half price at Google’s cafes.”

            • jim says:

              The reason that I got all shouty (which I should not have, I apologize) was that your statement

              “If you are interviewing a woman, the question your boss asks you is not whether any of the women or minorities qualify, but which woman or minority is best for this woman/minority position.”

              shows that you don’t have a very clear picture of how Google works.

              Where I express myself ambiguously, you should charitably interpret me as likely meaning whatever meaning makes sense. In Google, it is uncommon to interview a diversity as part of the normal hiring process. The normal case when you interview a diversity is that you are interviewing them as part of the diversity channel. In which case the question your boss implicitly asks you is whether diversity Ann or diversity Carol gets this woman/minority position.

            • jim says:

              Why yes Jim, that is because they have better things to do than play politics all day. Like get their job done.

              The outcome with Google Wallet and Google maps would suggest that they are not getting their job done.

              Come on, this has nothing to do with politics.

              Companies can fail for many reasons. Google hired diversities, which was not going to kill them or do them much harm. The usual procedure is to dump the diversities into the art harem or something similar, so that they don’t get too much up the nose of the engineers.

              Google then, however, faced with embarrassing performance from its diversities, escalated from affirmative action to suppressing disparate impact.

              Suppressing disparate impact will kill you. It killed the finance industry.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            “Do you think every big company’s decline is due to SJWs ruining hiring?”

            Obviously all organizations have a tendency to decay as managers tend to hollow them out by running them for their own benefit but before the Microsoft anti-trust suit tech companies seemed to do well at not decaying.

            Since then the number one priority once tech companies got over a certain size is to appease the left. Banks appeased the left and they now get to print money for no risk. Tech companies publicly only get the stick but who knows how much money is being funneled into companies in exchange for running data lines into the NSA’s data center in Utah.

            Once you’re a political entity then political aims become the most important thing to your company.

            So to answer your question – yes but it’s complicated.

          • R7_Rocket says:

            Yahoo!’s first search result for “neoreaction” is neoreaction.com, an alphabetized compendium of NRx thought (includes tweets from Nyan Sandwich).

          • Alrenous says:

            Which is to say, I suspect that were I to give you the information you request, this might well have bad consequences for people I care about.

            Disappointed with myself for not thinking of this right away: if you want others’ real names, Was Enlightened, why don’t you start by giving us yours? If it’s really not such a big deal…

        • Lars Grobian says:

          It must be weird to be so high up the food chain that you see competent female engineers. At the little companies I’ve worked at in New England, female engineers are all losers (desktop support and QA girls can be excellent though, and real likable people).

          Really enjoying your comments from inside Google. Thanks!

          • jim says:

            It must be weird to be so high up the food chain that you see competent female engineers.

            More likely he is so low on the food chain, that he sees whatever he is damn well told to see.

    • B says:

      Like newspapers, I find that Jim is very convincing as long as he is speaking about things of which I have no personal experience.

      Maybe it’s a case of perspective-it’s hard to see something in detail when your face is mashed into it.

      Or maybe it’s something else.

      • Chuck says:

        I don’t know why Jim is so beloved by neo- reactionaries, because as far as this post is concerned, he doesn’t appear to know what the hell he’s talking about.
        He presents his opinion in this stark, authoritarian style and just hope it sticks to the wall.
        Sometimes it sticks, and sometimes it doesn’t.

        • peppermint says:

          Jim is great, who are you? Do you have a blog? vxxc and Henry Dampier have blogs.

          This is another jim jumps to conclusions article. He writes these a lot, and it’s okay, because I like listening to him. If you prefer hard-hitting news with like truthfulness, check out DailyStormer.

          we all know that Google has been declining. They probably assigned all the African-Americans to maintain Google Reader, which is why Was Enlightened doesn’t know about them having overwritten the repository with their correspondence with their probation officers. What I miss even more is how Google Wallet used to give money to random websites for you so you didn’t have to give them your cc# directly, but I guess the Jews have their reason for shutting that down.

          Anyway, I was considering posting this yesterday, but I thought everyone here understood Jim, and I had already mentioned African-Americans and Jews once.

        • Alex J. says:

          Jim’s specialty is extrapolating from limited information. Overconfidence comes with the territory.

          • Halo says:

            >Jim’s specialty is extrapolating from limited information.

            Most good heuristics work better with limited information than with a lot of information. When you know too much about a dynamic most of that knowledge becomes noise obscuring the real workings of a system.

            This is also why a lot of big discoveries come from people from outside their fields of specialization. They see less noise to clutter up their vision and can pick the pasterns that matter with greater ease.

          • peppermint says:

            — this is also why a lot of big discoveries come from people from outside their fields of specialization

            typical dilettante dreaming don’t reddit from the bar try to pick up the hospitality and nursing chicks even if it isn’t discovery you have a purpose in this race

      • It is so hard to know what is happening in an organization unless you are part of it.

        Everything written about Google in the media, and by transference everything written about any other company in the media, is complete trash.

        Recently two senior Google executives published a book about Google. You would think Google’s former CEO and Google’s former head of product would know what they are talking about. But Googlers noticed that some of the terms that were presented as common lingo were words that they had never heard used at Google. Even the details of how interviews were performed did not match most Googlers’ experiences.

        • peppermint says:

          senior executives like to assume the sale of their management techniques, it’s called ‘having game’. Writing books about how smart they are is how they get their next job. Listening to the media is probably a better idea.

          But anyway, I think the reason Google is declining is that it’s seen as a career path for careerists while people with smart ideas start startups. Doesn’t explain the inability to maintain critical infrastructure like Google Reader, but does explain the new focus on changing the HI/UI/UX every year or two.

        • B says:

          It’s a very standard leftist mode of discourse:

          Leftist: “Your group does X.”

          Subject of inquisition: “No, we don’t.”

          L: “Of course you do. Explain this.” (produces something that can, out of context, be taken as a sign of X)

          S: “That’s not X. That’s Y. It can be construed to look like X, but is actually not at all.”

          L: “You are either lying or suffering from false consciousness. Admit it.”

          When delivered with the power of the organization behind the leftist inquisitor, this discourse is very ominous and precedes a purgin’. Without that power, it’s just obnoxious.

          • peppermint says:

            the Talmud says to make goyim eat their own children, and so millions of American babies are mutilated and the piece that is cut off is turned into skin cream

          • B says:

            You are a talmudic scholar now! That’s wonderful.

            Tell me, how does the Talmud reconcile this passage (which doesn’t seem to exist outside of antisemitic websites, true repositories of Talmudic wisdom that they are) with the one that says that the only reason G-d continues your existence is that you don’t marry men to each other, respect the Torah and don’t sell human meat in the marketplace?

    • JimEmbarrasssesTheRight says:

      Thanks. It’s nice to see an accurate portrayal based on facts, rather than Jim’s ignorant and hysterical fabrication. The ideas that Google is laying off smart people; or white men; or that there are no good female programmers; are so off base as to be ridiculous to anyone who actually has any involvement in the tech industry.

      There are plenty of true ridiculous progressive things to mock; it does no one any good to make them up.

      As Was Enlightened states below; Google certainly looks harder to find minority job candidates – puts more effort into sourcing them – but when it comes to getting hired, all are treated equally.

      • jim says:

        Reality is that treating women equally does not result in significant female representation, still less in any firm that is trying to select the better engineers.

        I have inside information that Google is not treating women equally, but rather women are hired through the diversity “channel” aka quota. But anyone could reach that conclusion without inside information from the fact that Google has managed to hire a significant number of female engineers.

        Similarly, one can infer that heretics are purged from the remarkable political uniformity of Google employees. The interesting question is not whether the purge is taking place, but to what extent smart people tend to be suspected of heresy merely because they are smart.

  10. Halo says:

    >>“You haven’t seen anyone at Google fired for sexual harassment?”

    >People are not fired very often. When I knew such people, the cause was pretty obviously performance.

    >There is an internal app that gives information about the rank and tenure of people who leave. So if there were an exodus of senior people doing difficult work, I would probably be aware of it.

    Where I work everyone is basically forced to resign before they are fired and in the case were it was politics that lead to their demise no will talk about the reason they “resigned”. Are you sure the people being fired are not resigning and having the reasons they were fired covered up to avoid law suits?

    >I have seen people gently suggest in “public” (i.e., internal mailing lists) that evolution selects for women to cluster around the mean. They caught some flak, but I did not notice that they were fired, nor did they
    appear a week later with a placard around their neck to make a grovelling apology.

    I’ve worked in academia. People who do stuff like this are never fired for it. Instead they’re given bad job reviews and told they should find a job elsewhere or their position is eliminated in the next budget. A big part of the progressive movement is indirect oppression of thought.

    >However most of the people we hire are not so far on the edge, at say 1 standard deviation above average rather than 2 or 3. And you can find competent Asian and white women engineers in that population.

    I have several female programmer under me. One wastes more time getting others to do her job for her than it would have taken to fire her and give the extra work load to the guys. The others output is 1/10th the guys output. All the women have been promoted multiple times despite the limited output.

    >So the “affirmative action” is not to hire Alice instead of Bob. It’s to hire Bob, and also look under all the rocks and behind every tree for an Alice to hire. This is still unfair to Bob, but not grossly so, and therefore most people can let it slide.

    Anyone who still believes this is either a liar or stupid.

    • >>There is an internal app that gives information about
      >>the rank and tenure of people who leave. So if there
      >>were an exodus of senior people doing difficult work,
      >>I would probably be aware of it.

      >Are you sure the people being fired are not resigning
      >and having the reasons they were fired covered up to
      >avoid law suits?

      There are no reasons given in the app, nor can one distinguish termination from resignation; I can see the tenure and the name. That’s enough to provide visibility into whether there has been a sudden mysterious exodus of senior people.

      Sure, people do leave, and if you want to spin a conspiracy theory around it I can’t stop you. But some attrition is to be expected.

      >I’ve worked in academia. People who do stuff like this are
      >never fired for it. Instead they’re given bad job reviews and
      >told they should find a job elsewhere or their position is
      >eliminated in the next budget.

      That would not work at Google, where budgets are constantly
      expanding. Also ratings have a committee element of their
      own. HR cannot just reach into someone’s file and insert
      a low rating.

      >>So the “affirmative action” is not to hire Alice instead of Bob.
      >>It’s to hire Bob, and also look under all the rocks and behind
      >>every tree for an Alice to hire. This is still unfair to Bob,
      >>but not grossly so, and therefore most people can let it slide.

      >Anyone who still believes this is either a liar or stupid.

      Yawn. Did I land in redstate.org by accident? Did you read
      what I wrote?

      I explained why affirmative action can be applied not too
      unfairly at Google, where growth creates demand for employees
      that cannot be satisfied, and a filter is applied equally to
      everyone.

      Of course affirmative action as practiced almost everywhere
      else is a disaster.

  11. One more question: Are you actually serious about this:

    “As Google became more and more intimate with the government, and in particular the NSA”

    No Googler would take you seriously upon reading that. Googlers hate the NSA, personally, not politically, because the NSA did a victory lap after tapping us, in the manner of a bully kicking a kid into a slushy puddle and then giving him a wedgie:

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/leaked-slide-shows-nsa-celebrated-170008891.html

    Any Googler, including myself, would be proud to pull a Snowden about a collaboration with the NSA. (Especially since, unlike Snowden, one would probably not have to go into exile to do so.)

    • jim says:

      Oh come on.

      Julian Assange thinks you are lying. I have more confidence in Julian Assange than I have in you, plus, his version is consistent with the remarkable lengths Google goes to, to ensure it has access to true names.

      The leaks revealed that Google was in the NSAs pocket. Google piously declared that they were being spied on against their will, rather than intentionally providing the NSA with customer information. Well, if being spied on against your will, perhaps you should stop going out of your way to get other people’s plaintext and connect it to other people’s true names.

      Plus, it is kind of obvious that any organization that abruptly mandates support for gay marriage, that avoids disparate impact, etc, is in the pocket of the government, and therefore in the pocket of the NSA.

      All google emails go to the NSA. The question then is: Is this active google policy, or clever NSA spycraft. Google’s true names policy answers that.

      • >I have more confidence in Julian Assange than I have in you,

        Well, that’s a shame, if you had more confidence in me you could maybe write a post about Google with one sentence in it that contained an actual fact.

        >his version is consistent with the remarkable lengths Google
        >goes to, to ensure it has access to true names.

        Of course Google wants to know everything about you. They want to advertise stuff to you, and they thought they can compete with Facebook (an initiative that was a far bigger disaster than hiring minorities).

        >Plus, it is kind of obvious that any organization that abruptly
        >mandates support for gay marriage, that avoids disparate
        >impact, etc, is in the pocket of the government, and therefore
        >in the pocket of the NSA.

        Quod erat demonstrandum.

        >All google emails go to the NSA.

        Do they now.

        • jim says:

          Of course Google wants to know everything about you. They want to advertise stuff to you

          In fact, for advertising purposes, the topic of the current search so far outweighs everything else as to render additional information a distraction. In so far as additional information is useful, which is dubious, what you want is the search history. True names are useful for the NSA, not the advertiser. And I am not just guessing. I know the results of the studies conducted by Google and others on this very question. In fact, Google does not use true name information to target advertising.

          If at one time they thought that this information might useful for advertising purposes, they no longer think this, yet their true name policy is more vigorous than ever.

          All google emails go to the NSA.

          Do they now.

          They very recently used to. If this was the NSA spying, rather than Google collaborating, what has Google done to stop the spying?

        • jim says:

          Well, that’s a shame, if you had more confidence in me you could maybe write a post about Google with one sentence in it that contained an actual fact.

          In the article I asserted that Google hired women through a diversity quota. You repeatedly denied it, and then, after numerous comments vehemently denying it in the strongest possible language, you admitted it but instead argued that it did not matter.

          So if I had more confidence in you, my article would have been less accurate.

          With your concession, the area of disagreement has been reduced to “1 women are wonderful, and 2 Google is not doing anything to force everyone to believe that women are wonderful, and 3 in particular is not doing anything about disparate impact”

          Most of my readers have sufficient information to judge the credibility of positions one and two.

          As for position three, I say I have inside information that Google is suppressing disparate impact, a policy well known to be suicidal, and you say you have inside information that they are not. Most companies do not suppress disparate impact, because the policy is well known to be suicide, so readers will just have to look at our differing assertions about inside information, and ask themselves which pattern of inside information is the more credible.

          Additionally, I also have inside information that true name data is not useful for advertising purposes.

          Now it is reasonable for Google to collect everything it can, and hope that some use for that data might turn up – but when NSA got at their data quite recently, and as far as anyone knows is still doing it, not so reasonable with true names.

          • >In the article I asserted that Google hired women
            >through a diversity quota. You repeatedly denied it, and >then, after numerous comments vehemently denying it in
            >the strongest possible language,

            I vehemently denied that you had the slightest idea what the hell goes on at Google. That is a different issue from whether there is a side process for hiring women.

            >you admitted it but
            >instead argued that it did not matter.

            Well no, I did not admit it. I said it was not impossible, but I would be surprised if it were true, and I gave five reasons why I thought it was not true.

            Also, scale matters. Google hires thousands of people every year. If they have some side channel that results in hiring 10 or 20 women through abnormal channels, that doesn’t really mean anything.

            • jim says:

              If they have some side channel that results in hiring 10 or 20 women through abnormal channels, that doesn’t really mean anything.

              You know, and I know, and any of my readers that have worked in Silicon Valley know, that you do not get significant numbers of female engineers without affirmative action.

              The usual procedure is to stick the dead weight in the art harem. If you don’t stick the dead weight somewhere out of the way, problems ensue.

              I say Google is dealing with these problems in a way that is well known to be disastrously bad. You do not say that Google is dealing with these problems just fine, instead you say that Google has no problems of this kind.

          • peppermint says:

            are there only a bit more than 10 or 20 women out of every thousands of employees?

          • jim says:

            Good example. Google detects Petraeus is in the apartment of a woman not his wife, then either Google or the NSA rats him out to those to his left.

            Google piously proclaims that the NSA reading your Google mail is not Google collaborating with the NSA, but the NSA spying on them,

            “We are outraged at the lengths to which the government seems to have gone to intercept data from our private fiber networks, and it underscores the need for urgent reform,”

            but the Petraeus affair showed active cooperation, the left spying on the not quite so left, which is also Julian Assange’s assessment.

          • Lars Grobian says:

            Assange is also the left spying on the less left. He had the poor judgement to do it to a less-left which can hit back. Assange may be useful, but he can’t be trusted. He would have anybody like you and me starve in a labor camp if he had his druthers.

          • pdimov says:

            Assange on Eric Schmidt:

            http://www.newsweek.com/assange-google-not-what-it-seems-279447

            Read it, then decide for yourself whether you’re going to trust it. Looks true to me.

          • >Assange on Eric Schmidt:
            >Read it, then decide for yourself whether you’re
            >going to trust it. Looks true to me.

            This simply speaks to what I said earlier about it being impossible to get a true picture of an organization from the outside. Schmidt says something to Assange who repeats it to a reporter who writes it up for maximum sensationalism.

            And yet there’s not very much there. Google ran to the NSA for help after being hacked by the globe’s second most powerful country. Google has a partnership to operate a satellite, which is entirely unsurprising for a company in the map business. (Oh noes, they share their data with the government! No one in the government knew how to process satellite imagery until Google told them to!)

            (Note that all this stuff happened many years before Google was humiliated by finding out that the NSA pwned us and then made a logo to celebrate it.)

            Of all the clickbait trash in this article, this part is the trashiest and click-baitiest:

            “””
            During the same period [2003], Google — whose publicly declared corporate mission is to collect and “organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful” — was accepting NSA money to the tune of $2 million to provide the agency with search tools for its rapidly accreting hoard of stolen knowledge.
            “””

            Because of the date, there is only one thing this can mean: Google sold the NSA a “search appliance”. This was a box, the size and shape of Sun’s Sparc servers, that would index your corporate internet.

            Which of course is totally unremarkable technology, and has nothing to do with Google sharing your data with the NSA.

            At this point, I am done with this thread. If you keep slinging mud at Google, some of it will stick. (Hell, I myself think it’s likely there was dirty work done to Petraeus — though probably at the behest of Obama’s staff, whom Google loves so very much.)

            You can take a guy off the street, blindfold him, put him at the 3-point line, and at some point he’ll make a basket by luck.

            But no basketball team will be fooled into thinking he knows what he’s doing.

            • jim says:

              This simply speaks to what I said earlier about it being impossible to get a true picture of an organization from the outside. Schmidt says something to Assange who repeats it to a reporter who writes it up for maximum sensationalism.

              But it all fits together in a big picture. Strange political uniformity in Google could be because progressivism is the obvious truth and no intelligent person could possibly disagree – yet I seem to see a rain of terror going on in Google, which rain of terror is, like the Pol Pot terror, getting rid of the smartest people regardless of their loyalty and political beliefs, for they stand convicted of crimes committed in other people’s dreams. Assange sees Google and the State Department are one entity – and General Petraeus painfully experiences Google and the State Department as one entity.

              We see multiple independent sources of evidence all showing us the same picture. Assange fits with Petraeus, and neither of them fits with your account.

              I know of lots of attempts to get reasonable numbers of female engineers – and they all went horribly wrong, the least bad outcome, and in my experience the usual outcome, being to shovel the deadweight off to the artist harem. Therefore, improbable that Google’s efforts are producing the results that you claim, or are achieved by the methods you claim. If one lie, all lies.

              And the whole picture fits with a Google that politically games its search engine results. Not only is that not the behavior of good guys, it is not the behavior of people who think they are the good guys, not the behavior of people who honestly believe that they have truth on their side. To game the results is a kind of lie, and if one lie, everything is a lie.

          • pdimov says:

            “At this point, I am done with this thread. If you keep slinging mud at Google, some of it will stick.”

            You need a thicker skin.

            I just responded to your questioning the statement that “all google emails go to the NSA.”

            It’s true that we can’t have an accurate picture from the outside, but there’s enough evidence that law enforcement appears to have access to unsent Gmail drafts and login IP/timestamps.

            You could trust FBI’s claims on how they manage to obtain such access, but this could be “parallel construction”. NSA could just’ve given them the info in advance.

            It’s now obvious for everyone that if you might be of interest to the NSA, a prudent policy might be to not login to Google.

            This by itself does not imply that “Google” gives the information to the NSA. It’s possible that the NSA pwned your datacenter to datacenter pipes all by itself. But the Silk Road 2.0 bust happened after that, and I seem to remember that you’ve fixed that particular leak by encrypting the traffic.

            In addition, the NSA may have had a smidgen of inside help pwning you. It doesn’t take much, and you would never know. “Google” did not cooperate with the NSA. Someone just might have given them the keys to the castle.

            That is of course speculation from the outside. It may well be that your internal security is watertight and that there could have been absolutely no way of someone leaking critical info to NSA. If so, great.

            Re Assange and Eric Schmidt, the most interesting part of the excerpt is how Assange thought he was meeting with Google, and later discovered that he was actually meeting with the State Department. That is of course another speculation from the outside, this time Assange’s. He may be wrong. In the recollection of these events however he doesn’t seem to be lying, as there’re witnesses.

          • B says:

            Throughout the last 100 years, there has been no daylight between big US business and the Cathedral. For instance, we can see from Anthony Sutton’s books that Wall Street and State were coordinating their efforts and had revolving doors between them 100 years ago, and indeed, the CIA grew out of Wall Street’s private intelligence network (and the first head of the OSS was a Wall Street lawyer.)

            There has also been no daylight between US academia and the Cathedral (obviously.)

            Why, then, would there be any daylight between Silicon Valley (which emerged from academia, the military industrial complex and big business) and the Cathedral?

            The enstupidation of Silicon Valley is not the result of its independence being subverted by the Cathedral-it never had any independence to begin with. Rather, it’s a symptom of the general enstupidation of the Cathedral, of which it is a part. If State has pointy haired lesbian commissars, shortly Silicon Valley and Fortune 500 companies will as well.

        • JimEmbarrasssesTheRight says:

          Jim doesn’t want facts. He just wants to go on the NRX version of a SJW witchhunt, where he agitates against those he perceives as powerful and wrong-thinking, regardless of the facts, in order to feel righteous and score points with his thede.

          If you want a fact-based NRX thede, Jim’s blog is not the place to find it.

          • peppermint says:

            haha, this is the actual utility of the word ‘thede’. It’s a stupid word, but it’s hard to use correctly, and thus can be used to detect entryists.

            But yes, Jim goes overboard with the speculation sometimes. And sometimes, frighteningly, he’s right about it. And after seeing the Google engineer carefully explain that 10 or 20 women get affirmative-actioned in every year, I guess I believe him this time.

            If you want fact-based news, there’s DailyStormer. If you want to hear it before it’s news, Jim is apparently the only person on the entire Internet who is able to think logically about stuff.

            • jim says:

              haha, this is the actual utility of the word ‘thede’. It’s a stupid word, but it’s hard to use correctly, and thus can be used to detect entryists.

              Nicely spotted, peppermint. Good use of shibboleths. Or, which comes to the same thing, detection of bad use of shibboleths. I don’t use the word thede because, though it is a very good word, hard to use correctly. But then I don’t need to signal that I am one of us.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            Another huge tell is the “affirmative action here works really well to get oppressed group properly represented”.

            Has any progressive ever admitted that any specific example of affirmative action works only to install commissars?

    • peppermint says:

      You let your company tell you who to hate, and then you believe that your company’s leaders hate the people they tell you to hate?

  12. […] IBM and Kodak and Google and FEMA and the CDC, the organization will retain only marginal competence in completing its […]

  13. […] of caste, media hysteria, where reaction begins, ambiguities of narrativization, Google on the slide, the American era comes apart. The language of recovery. The meaning of property (previously […]

  14. […] commenter draws my attention to the Barbie book “I Can Be an Actress/I Can Be a Computer Engineer […]

  15. Alrenous says:

    It’s not Jim’s job to prove Google spies. It’s Google’s job to prove they don’t spy. They easily could be, they could easily obscure the fact, and therefore the presumption of innocence is not useful for us.
    Independently, humans cheat, and therefore Google, being made of humans, more likely cheats than doesn’t cheat.

  16. […] in the ethnicity form, or refuse to answer [1]. But it looks like affirmative action is crippling Google. Which is stupid, for almost all geeks have a binary opinion to their co workers; their code is […]

Leave a Reply