[Ansil849]

I'm saying no such thing. What I am saying is that I find this 'we're just code monkeys, we don't enact policy' retort I see so frequently here incredibly annoying, because it acts like programmers are not human beings with agency in a market with typically extreme mobility.

[jodrellblank]

If they're trying to leave and can't leave because nobody will hire them because they work(ed) somewhere bad (that's the original comment in this thread; never trusting a Norton employee's resume) and you're also criticising them for "choosing" to continue working there, what chance does that give them? That isn't having agency in a market.

If "the decision to work and continue working there" is a bad one, that makes the decision to leave a better decision, yes? And the person who makes such a decision, a better person. And if you want to hire people who have agency and act with integrity, someone who left Norton is a slightly higher signal than someone who never heard of Norton, isn't it?

[Stevvo]

parent comment is once again saying no such thing. The root comment of this thread are not the words of that comment.

[jodrellblank]

You can't just keep repeating "saying no such thing" when you (they) are saying such a thing.

They joined in to a root comment reminding people to reject Norton employee resumes, by saying that Norton people who don't get other jobs are morally bad people and programmers are free agents who could get other jobs (by implication they would do so if they were morally good people). Under this worldview, leaving shows moral goodness so hiring them should be encouraged more than hiring a random person. Saying "nuh uh" isn't enough to wriggle out of it.

[Stevvo]

That's ridiculous. You also joined the discussion; by your own flawed logic, shouldn't we also determine everything everything you have said in this thread as being in support of the argument put forth in the root comment?

[jodrellblank]

What specifically do you disagree with, or consider flawed logic, or ridiculous?

    1. Pick a human at random, you have no information
       about their character.

    2. Hurting people is bad.

    3. It is possible to unknowingly hurt people, which does
       not reflect on moral character.

    4. Learning that you are hurting people, and then continuing 
       to do so is morally bad.

    5. Learning that you are hurting people, and then stopping
       is morally better.

    6. Therefore you have more information of good moral character
       about someone who has learned that they are hurting people and stopped,
       than about the unknown person in 1.

    7. It is not reasonable to expect every job seeking person to know 
       about every company reputation, or the crypto miner management might
       ask them to work on at some point in future.

    8. Working at a company involves learning a lot more about what they do.

    9. Learning that what they do is hurting people, and leaving, 
       is more evidence of moral goodness than you know about 
       an unknown random job applicant from an unknown previous employer.

Or, alternately if you don't disagree with any of those, perhaps you disagree with the idea that someone could work for Norton not knowing in advance they would be harming people, so that counts as morally bad. Then you either think "hire morally bad people" or you agree with the root claim "remember don't hire Norton programmers".

If so, then you disagree with the parent commenter's "everyone has the freedom to get another job" because if nobody should hire them, they don't have said freedom.

    1.