[ergocoder]

"If you eat dinner today, I'll commit suicide." - I'll probably skip dinner to save life.

"If you eat dinner today, I'll quit my job" - then, I'll probably tell person that they can quit their job. I'm not gonna skip my dinner for that.

I hope this illustrates that, when death is involved, everything else becomes secondary, and we prioritize not death over everything.

So, it's a bad analogy to use in Timnit's situation where she will quit if she doesn't get to see the identities of peer reviewers. This situation is not life and death.

[andrewprock]

Sure, but you left out the actual situation:

"If you eat dinner today, I'll quit my job" - then, you fire them and get on with dinner.

[ergocoder]

If I eat dinner, you will want to quit and I want you to quit. Both want to part way.

We can agree to disagree on being fired or not being fired.

But why would 'being fired' (or not) matter since both sides want to part way?

[pseudalopex]

The debate about her being fired or resigning is a debate about who to believe about what led up to it. People who insist she resigned see her saying she was fired as evidence of a victim complex and publicity seeking. People who insist she was fired see Google saying she resigned as evidence of unfair treatment and dishonesty.

[ergocoder]

> People who insist she was fired see Google saying she resigned as evidence of unfair treatment and dishonesty.

I don't see any unfair treatment. Her ultimatum isn't satisfied, so both part way.

This group of people also hyper-focus way way too much on this part, which is not the important.

It's much better to focus on other stuffs like her paper didn't get approved because o A, B, and C. Or how Google suppresses her paper because of X, Y, Z.

Instead these people are yelling that Timnit was fired unfairly when she was the one who gave the ultimatum first...?