|
|
|
|
|
|
by describe24
2020 days ago
|
|
|
Most people aren't responding because they're defending the actions of a "large corporate entity". They're relating to the people, such as Jeff Dean, that made that decision. A decision that definitely wasn't taken lightly. The people that had to work closely with her, with whom she has publicly ridiculed on Twitter. She's even tweeted that she suspects there was a team of people behind the decision to accept her resignation. All those people don't put Google first. The hard truth is that she was probably extremely unpleasant to work with it (this is my reading of the above link and from what I've witnessed on Twitter) and they had just reached their limits. Not Google, but the people that had to work with her (I'm clearly not referring to her subordinates who are all apparently "indebted" to her which is a whole other issue onto itself). She comes across as very entitled and quite frankly, although I hate to say it as it's a bit of a cliche at this point, narcissistic. These are all based on what I've been able to find online. I've never met her in person. I'm trying very hard to not see her negatively but it's also hard finding evidence that's she's not hostile to those that don't 100% accept and agree with her. I'm definitely open to seeing her in a different light if anyone wants to share links. However, just because you research ethics doesn't mean you practice what you preach nor that you're a saint who can do no wrong. |
|
|
Would that be somehow bad? I'm not even entirely sure of what does that even mean. If I submit a resignation letter, I don't even expect it to be rejected, engineers and researchers are not some kind of ministers. At most some people can consult each others and ponder if its worth to attempt to retain her, but even then the concept is not entirely one of "I/we don't accept your resignation letter"...