[neom]

Well if it was a google employee who committed suicide at home, or off of the various many other places you could chose to kill yourself in Manhattan, I'd generally agree. This person however, jumped off their employers office building.

[haswell]

> This person however, jumped off their employers office building.

Why does this indicate anything other than the fact that he chose a building he’s familiar with and to which he had access?

What if their personal life was not in good shape and they wanted someone to find them?

There is no basis at this point for speculation that Google was a primary causal factor.

[aaomidi]

The timing of the layoffs, etc. yes there is room for speculation. There’s always room for speculation.

[haswell]

Sure, there's always "room" for speculation, and someone will always speculate. But that doesn't give this speculation any basis nor should it excuse irresponsible dialogue that seeks to generate answers for the sake of answers instead of accuracy and real information. There's a time during which such speculation is straight up irresponsible. It fuels narratives and feeds anger for reasons that can't be justified with data.

Layoffs are happening across industries. Are you suggesting that there is something specific about the way Google did theirs?

Suicides are higher across all demographics right now, and there's a pretty clear emerging consensus that there's a growing mental health crisis, and that it's not tied to a single employer.

Does this mean that Google had nothing to do with it? We don't know. But for anyone suggesting a connection, at least provide a plausible reason the connection exists, how it explains this scenario, and why that explanation is specific to Google. Otherwise why would such speculation provide any value?

The HN community is pretty good about demanding evidence and eschewing simplistic narratives that have no evidence to back them. Suicide is a tragic subject that evokes emotional responses, but that does not excuse baseless speculation.

[aaomidi]

So you agree there’s room for speculation.

That’s all I was saying. Did not state if I think it’s relevant or not.

[haswell]

I never claimed there wasn’t “room” for speculation and I can’t stop people from speculating.

My comment was about the basis for such speculation - for which there is none - and a criticism of this kind of speculation due to the problems it causes.

It’s uninteresting and is often the precursor to misinformation/disinformation.

[tempsy]

there’s no indication it was an intentional jump. the article says no note or video and that they found handprints, meaning at some point this person was hanging on a ledge.

so it is misleading to say he “jumped” if it ends up being an accidental fall.

there’s plenty of people who climb ledges in NYC to take photos at night, so would not be surprised if this ends up being entirely accidental as a result of trying to take photos

[neom]

I've been through that building very many times. DigitalOcean NYC2 is there, I've had lunch/dinner/drinks there more times than I can count. You don't just "fall off" 111 8th.

[tempsy]

Yeah, and I mentioned that he could have purposefully climbed a ledge to take nighttime photos and tripped.

I’ve seen dozens of “daredevil” skyline shots of NYC where people climb rooftops/bridges to take photos. Someone intentionally jumping does not “hang” on the side, they just jump.

[sterlind]

unless they have a change of heart? or maybe they're standing on the ledge trying to get up the courage to jump, and slip? a lot of people who attempt suicide immediately regret it (of the survivors.)

[tempsy]

ok but the criticism is the headline says he jumped when they don’t know, and that a fall is not a jump