Post: #151

(08-08-2017 07:25 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  As a reminder - every company that has a "Chief of Diversity" is an utter and complete social justice globalist postmodernist cultural marxist evil empire ship. The hiring at google is probably along similar lines. The bent would be even more male if meritocracy ruled. They probably check out your social media before they hire you. The young guy was likely just unawere of those issues because he was busy studying. Only at Google he was likely Red Pilled more and thought that it was a good idea to "innovate" things.

Of course this was laughable as an attempt - it was bound to either sideline him at Google or get him fired. This is one of the times where being a busy "conspiracy theorist" and researching all the angles helps save your job.

Looks like he could get hired by the alternative side, but something tells me that he is a true believer and honestly just tried to reform a "good thing". Good luck with that.

Agree with the sentiment of this post, but it wasn't really laughable. Reached front pages everywhere, so it raised awareness. Well done James.

Post: #152

(08-08-2017 10:23 AM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  

Post: #153

Quote:George Orwell created the word doublethink in his dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (published in 1949); doublethink is part of newspeak. In the novel, its origin within the typical citizen is unclear; while it could be partly a product of Big Brother's formal brainwashing programmes,[2] the novel explicitly shows people learning doublethink and newspeak due to peer pressure and a desire to "fit in", or gain status within the Party—to be seen as a loyal Party Member. In the novel, for someone to even recognize—let alone mention—any contradiction within the context of the Party line was akin to blasphemy, and could subject that person to disciplinary action and to the instant social disapproval of fellow Party Members

The CEO at Goolag has posted the text below on his blog.

It's a good example of doublethink.

Quote:This note was sent to Google employees this evening. -Ed.
This has been a very difficult time. I wanted to provide an update on the memo that was circulated over this past week.
First, let me say that we strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves, and much of what was in that memo is fair to debate, regardless of whether a vast majority of Googlers disagree with it. However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace. Our job is to build great products for users that make a difference in their lives. To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK. It is contrary to our basic values and our Code of Conduct, which expects “each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination.”
The memo has clearly impacted our co-workers, some of whom are hurting and feel judged based on their gender. Our co-workers shouldn’t have to worry that each time they open their mouths to speak in a meeting, they have to prove that they are not like the memo states, being “agreeable” rather than “assertive,” showing a “lower stress tolerance,” or being “neurotic.”
At the same time, there are co-workers who are questioning whether they can safely express their views in the workplace (especially those with a minority viewpoint). They too feel under threat, and that is also not OK. People must feel free to express dissent. So to be clear again, many points raised in the memo—such as the portions criticizing Google’s trainings, questioning the role of ideology in the workplace, and debating whether programs for women and underserved groups are sufficiently open to all—are important topics. The author had a right to express their views on those topics—we encourage an environment in which people can do this and it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions.
The past few days have been very difficult for many at the company, and we need to find a way to debate issues on which we might disagree—while doing so in line with our Code of Conduct. I’d encourage each of you to make an effort over the coming days to reach out to those who might have different perspectives from your own. I will be doing the same.
I have been on work related travel in Africa and Europe the past couple of weeks and had just started my family vacation here this week. I have decided to return tomorrow as clearly there’s a lot more to discuss as a group—including how we create a more inclusive environment for all.

Post: #154

Post: #155

Post: #156

(08-08-2017 10:45 AM)balybary Wrote:  

Goolag - hehe

Post: #157

(08-08-2017 10:43 AM)balybary Wrote:  The CEO at Goolag has posted the text below on his blog.

It's a good example of doublethink.

Quote:[Duckspeak Intensifies]

Overlapping bell-curves are to progressives what crosses and stakes are to vampires.

Post: #158

Brother of Bret Weinstein weighs in.

Post: #159

The original document on gender gap includes hyperlinks and graph.

link=>

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documen...hamber.pdf

Post: #160

Shit just got (more) real for Jordan B. Peterson. There is a Google connection. Watch the first 10 minutes.

Bible Series X: Abraham: Father of Nations

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y6bCqT85Pc

Post: #161

It seems that The Simpsons now predicts the future:

Post: #162

(08-08-2017 09:33 AM)Blaster Wrote:  I held out hope, not for his sake but for mine and frankly, Google's.

Let's not kid ourselves. The ramifications of this are vast. Google knows more about me than my family does. They are trendsetters.

Honestly, once a Google does this and gets away with it, I find nothing in my imagination that can reverse the effects of a tyrannical progressive agenda.

Post: #163

They force Christian bakeries to sell to gays, but when it comes to purging conservative thought, all of a sudden a company is allowed to maintain their company culture rules.

Post: #164

This is literally what you find in the comment section:

Post: #165

This entire fiasco is signal of Google's investors to start divesting. This shows how much power the SJWs have in company and willingness to remove top tier talent is sign that Google is half way dead and start of all the news stories of the company's internal problems.

REVEALED: Google’s Social Justice Warriors Create Wrongthink Blacklists

Its time to start forking, we are going to need it.

Post: #166

Four Scientists Weigh in, claim diversity manifesto is scientifically accurate

Post: #167

Vox Day and some of his people think Google's in a much weaker position than anyone else realizes.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/08/googl...stand.html

All of Google is kept afloat by one thing only. Adwords. They have no other significant source of income after a decade or more of trying to diversify. Every other business is borderline trivial when compared to AdWords. All the moonshots have failed. All the R&D has failed. It's. All. AdWords.

The money-making core of Google is a tiny speck of its workforce, a tiny core of people who make AdWords work. The fear is not that 2/3 are SJWs, it's that one or two or three of the key engineers, who are working on the next version of Search and Adwords, who are actively fighting and hardening against existential threats to the product, might walk, or even just do a slightly less great job.

Google is actually a very fragile company. They are ripe for disruption from a new player, or alternatively, to be drained from a few deep pocketed rivals. The entire bubble of online advertising stems from a belief that is often irrational that online advertising is effective at certain definitions of cost effectiveness.

In other words, as the AdWords model fails, which is already happening, Google's massive market cap is going to rapidly decline with it because all of its other businesses have failed to find traction. The company has observably entered the ideological death spiral that is the inevitable result of the Impossibility of Social Justice Convergence.

----------------------------------------

Online advertising is in a huge bubble right now, many companies are just waking up to the fact that massive overspending in online marketing and advertising is getting them no measurable increase in revenue or business profitability. I remember reading several recent articles detailing how overbought and underviewed digital ads are, especially compared to print ads. Here's a good article about Google's declinging ads business as well.


https://kalkis-research.com/google-end-o...ing-bubble
Executive Summary

The online advertising market is saturated, and has no more room to grow. The traditional space for ads is overcrowded, and has started to shrink, as Internet users start to use ad blockers.

Ad placement companies have compensated by displaying ads on ever lower quality websites. Worse, they have led their clients into pay-per-display advertising instead of pay-per-click, much less efficient and difficult to track.

As a result, online advertising efficiency has been decreasing for years, and companies have to spend more ad dollars for the same result.

The process of ad placement has become ever more automated, obscure and complex, while intermediaries have multiplied, each taking a cut from the client's initial ad budget.

Controls and regulations are nonexistent, and a big chunk of ad spending is being stolen, plain and simple. Customers are growing aware of the phenomenon of ad fraud. Every new fraud scandal bears the risk of customers scaling back on online ad spending. The whole ecosystem is at risk of turning from growth to decline, overnight, in a rerun of what happened in 2000-2001.

When this happens, the smaller players will be wiped out. Alphabet/Google, who has 90% of its revenue coming from online advertising, will see its business scale back to the levels of 2010-2011, while its share price will crash to the $200-$250 area. Facebook on the other hand, has a better control of who is actually seeing its ads, and will benefit from the turmoil by gaining market share.

-------------------------------------------
The good news is the beast is being starved slowly, so keep changing your homepage to anything but Google, keep using ad blockers, use alternative email than Gmail, keep using alternative websites like Gab, infogalactic to communicate and research, stay logged out of your google accounts so they can't track you, and keep starving the beast any way you can.

Post: #168

The stupidity of the women involved in this I can understand as they are driven by emotion.

What disgusts me more are the bloody white knights who are soo happy that the guy got fired. Deep soy is real

Post: #169

@DamienCasanova

Google's net income the past few years:

2013: 12 billion
2014: 14 billion
2015: 16 billion
2016: 19 billlion
2017 (first two quarters): 9 billion

That doesn't seem very fragile to me. In fact, I think a company that has no survival pressure is much more to likely engage in what we've seen in this story because whatever they choose to do, they know they won't be hurt by it.

Post: #170

(08-08-2017 12:29 PM)Blaster Wrote:  Four Scientists Weigh in, claim diversity manifesto is scientifically accurate

Not surprised that Geoffrey Miller was one of the four. I know he isn't popular in this community because he made a mistake by partnering with the wrong guy for a game book but I'm still a fan. I've read some of his other stuff and watched interviews of him on youtube. It's all good stuff.

Post: #171

(08-08-2017 01:15 PM)Corollary Wrote:  @DamienCasanova

Google's net income the past few years:

2013: 12 billion
2014: 14 billion
2015: 16 billion
2016: 19 billlion
2017 (first two quarters): 9 billion

That doesn't seem very fragile to me. In fact, I think a company that has no survival pressure is much more to likely engage in what we've seen in this story because whatever they choose to do, they know they won't be hurt by it.

All bubbles are fragile, it's just that no one sees them that way until they pop. Just like all ponzi schemes are very profitable....up until the point they're not anymore.

Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

Post: #172

(08-08-2017 12:27 PM)Thersites Wrote:  This entire fiasco is signal of Google's investors to start divesting. This shows how much power the SJWs have in company and willingness to remove top tier talent is sign that Google is half way dead and start of all the news stories of the company's internal problems.

The guy is not top tier in the company. He's an engineer. There are tons of people like him in Google. Top tier would be directors, VPs and individual engineers that are more proven than this guy.

If anything, Google tightened the discipline. Now everyone in the company will be a sheep afraid to talk about anything else but the weather and C++. This by itself might be a problem for innovative thinking though, but we'll see.

But you're right - what might happen now is an Uber-like outburst of "oh my god, five years ago the director gave me a Casanova rapist look". The signal has been sent - if you're not a sheep, you'll be fired. As we saw with Uber, the domino effect was strong.

Post: #173

(08-08-2017 01:22 PM)DamienCasanova Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 01:15 PM)Corollary Wrote:  @DamienCasanova

Google's net income the past few years:

2013: 12 billion
2014: 14 billion
2015: 16 billion
2016: 19 billlion
2017 (first two quarters): 9 billion

That doesn't seem very fragile to me. In fact, I think a company that has no survival pressure is much more to likely engage in what we've seen in this story because whatever they choose to do, they know they won't be hurt by it.

All bubbles are fragile, it's just that no one sees them that way until they pop. Just like all ponzi schemes are very profitable....up until the point they're not anymore.

Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

That's obviously true, but my main disagreement is over how fragile the company is, whatever that means.

We'll just have to wait and see what happens.

Post: #174

(08-08-2017 01:15 PM)Corollary Wrote:  @DamienCasanova

Google's net income the past few years:

2013: 12 billion
2014: 14 billion
2015: 16 billion
2016: 19 billlion
2017 (first two quarters): 9 billion

That doesn't seem very fragile to me. In fact, I think a company that has no survival pressure is much more to likely engage in what we've seen in this story because whatever they choose to do, they know they won't be hurt by it.

The point is the vast majority of Google's income comes from search + adwords. Search is a fragile market, despite Google's 16 year dominance. Google emerged from a very crowded field in 2001 and virtually wiped out the competition simply by being the best.

Unlike many other services, search has very little no hard lock-in. No network effects, no exclusive content, no barriers to exit. There's no emotional attachment to favorite chosen search engine. You can use whatever gives you the best results in the best format possible. Switching to a different search engine is a decision that can be made instantaneously by users. Google does have a massive datacenter infrastructure that gives it a huge competitive advantage, but plenty of other companies have powerful infrastructure. Many of Google's ancillary products, such as Google Chrome, are primarily about driving search traffic, and of course Google has massive mindshare and default browser settings. But ultimately, the main reason Google remains the most popular search engine is because it is the best product.

That's the reasoning behind why Google is more fragile than it appears. For 16 years the search+adwords teams have kept Google's search product the most popular. If Google no longer had the best engineers in the industry maintaining search+adwords, would Google be able to maintain this lead over the competition? That's the question Vox Day's blog asks. It's WAY too soon to be declaring that Google is finished, but it's interesting speculation.

Post: #175

(08-08-2017 01:27 PM)Corollary Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 01:22 PM)DamienCasanova Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 01:15 PM)Corollary Wrote:  @DamienCasanova

Google's net income the past few years:

2013: 12 billion
2014: 14 billion
2015: 16 billion
2016: 19 billlion
2017 (first two quarters): 9 billion

That doesn't seem very fragile to me. In fact, I think a company that has no survival pressure is much more to likely engage in what we've seen in this story because whatever they choose to do, they know they won't be hurt by it.

All bubbles are fragile, it's just that no one sees them that way until they pop. Just like all ponzi schemes are very profitable....up until the point they're not anymore.

Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

That's obviously true, but my main disagreement is over how fragile the company is, whatever that means.

We'll just have to wait and see what happens.

^^^
I agree with everything Blaster says above

And I agree with you as well, they are very flush with cash right now, and seem almighty and invincible with their massive war chest of money. But to me the Ad Words Problem is like their Achilles Heel. It's the weakness built into the core of the Google Death Star.

Bottom line, We know their weakness, and once /pol/ & the Chans and others lock onto targeting their revenue stream and exposing the fraud in their ads business, they could very well fall from grace.