Google engineer jumps to death in NYC, second worker suicide in months(nypost.com)
nypost.com
Google engineer jumps to death in NYC, second worker suicide in months
https://nypost.com/2023/05/05/google-senior-software-engineer-31-jumps-to-death-from-nyc-headquarters/
101 comments
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.
> 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.
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.
The timing of the layoffs, etc. yes there is room for speculation. There’s always room for speculation.
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.
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.
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.
That’s all I was saying. Did not state if I think it’s relevant or not.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
[deleted]
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.)
ok but the criticism is the headline says he jumped when they don’t know, and that a fall is not a jump
[deleted]
An employee of Google who jumped from the Google office is a pretty obvious connection. Don't really see how this is clickbait.
Google employs 200,000 people. Suicide rate in the US is ~13 per 100,000 per year. This means there is an expected base rate of Google employees committing suicide per year regardless of working conditions that is likely higher than just 2. Maybe there is a real issue but two suicides within such large number of employees isn’t statistically significant.
EDIT: I added "statistically" in the last sentence to clarify my intended meaning.
EDIT: I added "statistically" in the last sentence to clarify my intended meaning.
> Google employs 200,000 people. Suicide rate in the US is ~13 per 100,000 per year. This means there is an expected base rate of Google employees committing suicide per year regardless of working conditions that is likely higher than just 2. Maybe there is a real issue but two suicides within such large number of employees isn’t really significant.
How many of those 13/100,000/year have jobs?
How many of those 13/100,000/year have jobs?
[deleted]
You're assuming randomness among the US population. Might be a good assumption.
However, there are externalities to this suicide that may affect others who work at Google or in NY, and so the story is worthy of being contextualized. It might be clickbait to put the word "Google" in the title but not because of probabilistic irrelevance. People who kill themselves at work have an impact on coworkers and company, no two ways about it.
However, there are externalities to this suicide that may affect others who work at Google or in NY, and so the story is worthy of being contextualized. It might be clickbait to put the word "Google" in the title but not because of probabilistic irrelevance. People who kill themselves at work have an impact on coworkers and company, no two ways about it.
Suicide is tragic regardless of the circumstances, and it's a really bad take to try to minimize this because it's not statistically "significant" or "clickbait".
They weren't "minimizing." The point is that this article is trying to create a "Googlers are killing themselves" narrative, which is unwarranted.
There's nothing in the article (if you read it) that tries to paint that narrative. As far as NYP goes, it's actually pretty mild and factual. I don't understand why so many commenters here are jumping at the chance to defend poor little Google from the evils of bad journalism.
Also how is > Maybe there is a real issue but two suicides within such large number of employees isn’t really significant.
NOT minimizing?
Also how is > Maybe there is a real issue but two suicides within such large number of employees isn’t really significant.
NOT minimizing?
It's /mildly/ crafting the narrative in the very title... "second worker," which is implying "this is a pattern." Even the first word of the title is "Google."
As for the minimizing, remember that on HN we aim to take the best possible interpretation of our fellow members' comments. I'll assume that the person who wrote "isn't really significant" isn't a heartless monster, and therefore what they meant what that "this didn't merit a Google-focused NYPost article."
As for the minimizing, remember that on HN we aim to take the best possible interpretation of our fellow members' comments. I'll assume that the person who wrote "isn't really significant" isn't a heartless monster, and therefore what they meant what that "this didn't merit a Google-focused NYPost article."
I agree that suicide is tragic and we shouldn't minimize any instance of someone taking their own life.
I was trying to say that linking it to Google and implying it is a trend based on just two suicides given their extremely large employee count isn't statistically sound without additional supporting data. I was speaking about the link to Google rather than the suicides themselves.
I was trying to say that linking it to Google and implying it is a trend based on just two suicides given their extremely large employee count isn't statistically sound without additional supporting data. I was speaking about the link to Google rather than the suicides themselves.
If you want to have a meaningful comparison, then compare Google’s suicide rates with those of people in their thirties, gainfully employed / making six figures and have free access to mental health resources.
Mental health resources at Google are there to collect evidence in case the company closes to fire you and needs to defend against a lawsuit.
2 per year worldwide vs 2 per half-year in NYC office.
Bad take
"Significant" here meant "worth of a national news article."
It's clear that the journalist is crafting a "Why are Googlers killing themselves?" narrative.
It's clear that the journalist is crafting a "Why are Googlers killing themselves?" narrative.
If you're seriously considering suicide, why would you bother going in to work, and then commit suicide in your place of work (your company's HQ, no less), if not to make a statement of some sort?
Why is this a pretty obvious connection vs. just the pragmatic reality of having access to the Google building?
The factors that play into suicide are numerous, and there is no apparent reason that Google was a causal factor.
This is also not to say that they aren’t, but to point out that speculation about this has zero standing.
The factors that play into suicide are numerous, and there is no apparent reason that Google was a causal factor.
This is also not to say that they aren’t, but to point out that speculation about this has zero standing.
A worker kills himself at work by jumping off a work building and you are here trying to tell me speculation about work being involved has zero standing? I don't buy it.
It has no more standing than speculating that the suicide was related to a failed relationship with a coworker. And even in that case, a failed relationship is not usually the cause of suicide, even if it's a precipitating factor. Causes generally tie back to systemic issues.
Of all the ways one can die, suicide stems from the most deeply complex and systemic factors in one's life. To sit here and speculate about the cause with no information is irresponsible and I'd argue at the heart of what's wrong with social media today. For some reason people feel the need to have answers, even poorly considered speculation. I'd argue that it's far better to be willing to accept that there are times that require us to just withhold speculation until there's enough information to do so responsibly.
Whatever the cause turns out to be, these early discussions are the last contact most people will have with the topic, meaning whatever speculations are shared are likely to be the primary memories of those involved.
This community is quick to demand evidence and citations on most subjects (and rightly so), and this should be no different.
Of all the ways one can die, suicide stems from the most deeply complex and systemic factors in one's life. To sit here and speculate about the cause with no information is irresponsible and I'd argue at the heart of what's wrong with social media today. For some reason people feel the need to have answers, even poorly considered speculation. I'd argue that it's far better to be willing to accept that there are times that require us to just withhold speculation until there's enough information to do so responsibly.
Whatever the cause turns out to be, these early discussions are the last contact most people will have with the topic, meaning whatever speculations are shared are likely to be the primary memories of those involved.
This community is quick to demand evidence and citations on most subjects (and rightly so), and this should be no different.
I don't think they'd have put Duane Reade in the headline if one of their employees killed themselves. Probably wouldn't be a story at all, actually.
If it happened on the job then, yeah, they probably would. Just like there is a Walgreens security guard in the news currently for killing a shoplifter in SF. If he had killed someone outside his capacity as a Walgreens security guard, they wouldn't describe him as such.
If this engineer had killed themselves in another manner besides jumping off the top of their workplace, they might not be described as a Google engineer.
Edit to add: Statistically, I suspect that there have to have been many instances of Google employees committing suicide outside of work. I doubt those got headlines at all, let alone headlines including Google's name.
If this engineer had killed themselves in another manner besides jumping off the top of their workplace, they might not be described as a Google engineer.
Edit to add: Statistically, I suspect that there have to have been many instances of Google employees committing suicide outside of work. I doubt those got headlines at all, let alone headlines including Google's name.
[deleted]
Alternatively it is a high-up point from which to jump that the person(s) has easy access to.
Just like how people famously jump off the Golden Gate Bridge to protest bridges.
Their living in NYC is a more obvious connection, as there are studies showing that urban populations have significantly higher rates of mental disorders.
[deleted]
One of the statistical slights of hand of which I am rather unfond is gun deaths that don't mention that slightly more than half of them are suicides. This reminds me a bit of that.
Google says that Alphabet had 190,234 employees in 2022. The annual age-adjusted suicide rate is 13.42 per 100,000 individuals. Males die by suicide 3.5 times more often than females. A real actuary (I wish I had known that was a profession!) could work the numbers better than I, but I don't think this is out of line on a statistical level, sad as it is to say.
Google says that Alphabet had 190,234 employees in 2022. The annual age-adjusted suicide rate is 13.42 per 100,000 individuals. Males die by suicide 3.5 times more often than females. A real actuary (I wish I had known that was a profession!) could work the numbers better than I, but I don't think this is out of line on a statistical level, sad as it is to say.
People also did this with Foxconn. Supposedly at Foxconn's scale, the suicide rate wasn't alarming, but with people living in dorms and having suicide nets set up, it looks bad.
It wasn't clear when I read that the rate wasn't alarming if they were comparing the Foxconn rate to the entire general population rate or just the employed general population rate.
I think the difference is obvious.
I think the difference is obvious.
It was very much Foxconn spinning it as to be expected. I have no idea how much to trust that.
There was also a big case in France https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50865211
> I think tying "google" to a person's mental health crisis is clickbait
It's total clickbait and highlights the shameful narrative on HN and Reddit about "Mmm, Google bad." A guy just died and people are trying to push their own narrative without any sort of validity. Shameful and disgusting.
It's total clickbait and highlights the shameful narrative on HN and Reddit about "Mmm, Google bad." A guy just died and people are trying to push their own narrative without any sort of validity. Shameful and disgusting.
[deleted]
A coworker of mine committed suicide a couple of weeks before the date in which the company had announced that they would lay off some of us. This period of time in which we know layoffs were coming but we didn't know who was going to be let go was morale-destroying and I have no doubt in my mind that it pushed him over the edge.
He left behind his wife and two children. His name was Dave Brackman.
He left behind his wife and two children. His name was Dave Brackman.
Sorry for your loss.
Such a sad news. It’s really tragic someone go through this.
I know the incident could be unrelated but it is also a good reminder the human cost of decisions. The fed taking decisions for the economy, companies taking decisions to maximize shareholder value and ceo pay, etc. all have huge impact on people’s lives, some of it is visible, while some of it is not.
I know the incident could be unrelated but it is also a good reminder the human cost of decisions. The fed taking decisions for the economy, companies taking decisions to maximize shareholder value and ceo pay, etc. all have huge impact on people’s lives, some of it is visible, while some of it is not.
The article says no note, no video, and they found handprints.
This was nearly midnight at an outdoor terrace in the office. I guess I don’t see how anyone can say he “jumped” on purpose yet when at some point he must’ve been hanging which could have been a result of tripping on something.
This was nearly midnight at an outdoor terrace in the office. I guess I don’t see how anyone can say he “jumped” on purpose yet when at some point he must’ve been hanging which could have been a result of tripping on something.
I worked somewhere in midtown. We had access to a small roof above the main terrace. We were up there drinking after a party at 2 AM, sitting on the wall 8 stories up. I'm thinking don't fuck up because if you lean back, there's nothing between you and Sixth Avenue.
This is one of my "I could have died" moments.
This is one of my "I could have died" moments.
Yes could have been a drunken fall, or someone who climbed up a ledge to try to take some nighttime photos and tripped which I’ve seen plenty of times on social media especially in NYC.
> I don’t see how anyone can say he “jumped” on purpose yet when at some point he must’ve been hanging which could have been a result of tripping on something.
Wouldn't having a barrier low enough someone can trip and fall over be a recipe for a lawsuit? I imagine the barrier was high enough planting hands would be the natural way for most people to get on top or over.
Wouldn't having a barrier low enough someone can trip and fall over be a recipe for a lawsuit? I imagine the barrier was high enough planting hands would be the natural way for most people to get on top or over.
Which is why my main theory if it ends up being accidental is that this person purposefully climbed up a ledge they weren’t supposed to climb to take skyline photos. I’ve seen dozens of “daredevil” images on social media where people climb rooftops and bridges in NYC to take photos of the skyline at night.
And someone intentionally jumping does not hang on the side, they just jump.
And someone intentionally jumping does not hang on the side, they just jump.
You keep posting this same point over and over in this thread. This “oops he tripped” variant is in really bad taste.
You pan the article for going beyond the facts we know at this time and then come up with your own unfounded speculation…
You pan the article for going beyond the facts we know at this time and then come up with your own unfounded speculation…
> I know the incident could be unrelated but it is also a good reminder the human cost of decisions. The fed taking decisions for the economy, companies taking decisions to maximize shareholder value and ceo pay, etc. all have huge impact on people’s lives, some of it is visible, while some of it is not.
Not trying to be a jerk here, but this is not a good reminder of any of those things you listed. We have literally 0.0 reason to think that any of those were factors.
Not trying to be a jerk here, but this is not a good reminder of any of those things you listed. We have literally 0.0 reason to think that any of those were factors.
Sad to see such talented people take their life. Until a further investigation is made, it's hard to determine the cause. Getting into Google can be the pinnacle of one's life and ending it there is certainly symbolic.
Edit: Upon further reading, how do we know exactly they jumped if there's no video evidence? Was it an accident? The article does not state enough.
Edit: Upon further reading, how do we know exactly they jumped if there's no video evidence? Was it an accident? The article does not state enough.
Identifying with your employer to the extent you view it as the pinnacle of your life isn’t likely to end positively. It’s just too much control to cede to a third party who has a business relationship with you.
At some extremes, this is false, right? What about someone becoming an astronaut? Getting elected president?
Be cautious who you cede your identity to, but it's OK to be genuinely excited about some career outcomes.
Be cautious who you cede your identity to, but it's OK to be genuinely excited about some career outcomes.
> Identifying with your employer to the extent you view it as the pinnacle of your life isn’t likely to end positively.
> At some extremes, this is false, right? What about someone becoming an astronaut?
Sorry about the source, but have a look at this workplace discussion between two Russian Astronauts, about how that after the big send-off the job is a "heavy routine" and "depression hits". But they can't give it up.
https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/grzwfl/i_love_this_c...
- "I'm fed up. Fuck. This is the last time"
- "hahahaha"
- "What, dammit?"
- "This is the tenth time I hear that from you. We live while we work or fly."
I mean, what do you do after being an astronaut? If it's "the extreme pinnacle of your life" and it's over.
> At some extremes, this is false, right? What about someone becoming an astronaut?
Sorry about the source, but have a look at this workplace discussion between two Russian Astronauts, about how that after the big send-off the job is a "heavy routine" and "depression hits". But they can't give it up.
https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/grzwfl/i_love_this_c...
- "I'm fed up. Fuck. This is the last time"
- "hahahaha"
- "What, dammit?"
- "This is the tenth time I hear that from you. We live while we work or fly."
I mean, what do you do after being an astronaut? If it's "the extreme pinnacle of your life" and it's over.
Lawn chair Larry's story was kinda like that I think. I would love to take the flight but would never want any interaction with the authorities or publicity. They seem to ruin everything.
> At some extremes, this is false, right? What about someone becoming an astronaut? Getting elected president?
No, I’d say both of those are definite examples where the rule applies; particularly the latter, which is an extremely limited term gig, overidentifying with the job is dangerous, for you in most jobs, but also potentially for others in that last one, depending on how the overidentification manifests.
No, I’d say both of those are definite examples where the rule applies; particularly the latter, which is an extremely limited term gig, overidentifying with the job is dangerous, for you in most jobs, but also potentially for others in that last one, depending on how the overidentification manifests.
No, its perfectly fine to reach goals or ones you've had for most of your life, but its absolutely crucial that you make new goals to work towards. Its the same if you give up or change your mind about a goal, it has to be replaced.
From what I've heard (not my expertise) the brain chemistry primarily rewards the pursuit, not as much the outcome. I've been there a few times myself after both achieving and deciding to drop a major goal (because I learned more about the outcome that made it no longer desireable). Having no major goals is an almost certain recipie for clinical depression among other issues if one is not found quickly to replace it. I believe its because the intrusive thoughts of fundamental questions like "what is my life's purpose" now definitely have no answer in your own head.
From what I've heard (not my expertise) the brain chemistry primarily rewards the pursuit, not as much the outcome. I've been there a few times myself after both achieving and deciding to drop a major goal (because I learned more about the outcome that made it no longer desireable). Having no major goals is an almost certain recipie for clinical depression among other issues if one is not found quickly to replace it. I believe its because the intrusive thoughts of fundamental questions like "what is my life's purpose" now definitely have no answer in your own head.
I have always held multiple answers to "what is my life's purpose".
On a universal level, there is no purpose.
On a global level, there is probably no purpose.
On a societal level, maybe you can do something to help <insert whoever you want to help without harming others>, if that makes you happy.
On a familial level, people usually feel good interacting with family/friends, so the purpose could be to keep those feelings going.
Up to the individual to play the game or not play the game, no right or wrong answer. But if you are tying your happiness to expectations of being able to cause grand changes at the universal/global/even societal level, then you will probably be disappointed. Everyone's existence is almost certainly meaningless in the "big" picture.
On a universal level, there is no purpose.
On a global level, there is probably no purpose.
On a societal level, maybe you can do something to help <insert whoever you want to help without harming others>, if that makes you happy.
On a familial level, people usually feel good interacting with family/friends, so the purpose could be to keep those feelings going.
Up to the individual to play the game or not play the game, no right or wrong answer. But if you are tying your happiness to expectations of being able to cause grand changes at the universal/global/even societal level, then you will probably be disappointed. Everyone's existence is almost certainly meaningless in the "big" picture.
Ok so what do you tie your feeling of success to? Getting married and having kids? What if your wife divorces you? Same problem.
Certainly given the information available one can make a fuzzy speculation on the cause.
The cause likely has to do with Google and the location given that this is the second suicide from the same company and location.
The cause likely has to do with Google and the location given that this is the second suicide from the same company and location.
This is a tangent, but it reminds me of the plot of The Three Body Problem. The story begins with a series of suicides from top physics researchers because physics just stops working for some mysterious reason which is revealed later in the book.
I loved that series of books and this highlights why I like it so much. It's an "optimistic" view of humanity. People are serious in the book so its entirely plausible that physicists are so distraught at the futility of their efforts to understand the universe that they end their life if the universe is broken. And government officials are worried and dig into the issue. The book follows that theme as humanity puts forward a strong centralized effort to combat a threat. Human's aren't just a joke or a stepping stone. It's really a breath of fresh air compared to a lot of sci-fi that makes humans out to be idiots or malevolent. I don't know if it has to do with the book being from a Chinese author
I loved that series of books and this highlights why I like it so much. It's an "optimistic" view of humanity. People are serious in the book so its entirely plausible that physicists are so distraught at the futility of their efforts to understand the universe that they end their life if the universe is broken. And government officials are worried and dig into the issue. The book follows that theme as humanity puts forward a strong centralized effort to combat a threat. Human's aren't just a joke or a stepping stone. It's really a breath of fresh air compared to a lot of sci-fi that makes humans out to be idiots or malevolent. I don't know if it has to do with the book being from a Chinese author
> I don't know if it has to do with the book being from a Chinese author
The "knowledge being suppressed by semi-omnipotent aliens" plot is a fairly heavy analogy with the Cultural Revolution and its horrors in suppressing truth and inquiry. The book even mentions it near the start in case you were to miss it. In that context the suicides are probably direct analogies for those who killed themselves in despair during that time.
The "knowledge being suppressed by semi-omnipotent aliens" plot is a fairly heavy analogy with the Cultural Revolution and its horrors in suppressing truth and inquiry. The book even mentions it near the start in case you were to miss it. In that context the suicides are probably direct analogies for those who killed themselves in despair during that time.
> It's really a breath of fresh air compared to a lot of sci-fi that makes humans out to be idiots or malevolent.
Did we read the same book? A huge portion was devoted to the cultural revolution, and it definitely made humans look pretty "malevolent" there. I don't think the book really tries to be optimistic, just realistic, which means it calls out a lot of good and bad.
Did we read the same book? A huge portion was devoted to the cultural revolution, and it definitely made humans look pretty "malevolent" there. I don't think the book really tries to be optimistic, just realistic, which means it calls out a lot of good and bad.
It's been a while since I read it, but I think the cultural revolution served as character development and how the trauma effected some of the characters in the story. It also served as an analogy for suppressing scientific research. It's something that has been overcome and is (somewhat) overcome in the rest of the book and the subsequent novels from the Remembrance of Earth's Past trilogy.
It's not that people are all good, but they are serious, as are the governments involved. It might be more obvious from books 2 and 3.
Compare that to something like "Don't look up" (humans stupid) or "Avatar" (human bad)
It's not that people are all good, but they are serious, as are the governments involved. It might be more obvious from books 2 and 3.
Compare that to something like "Don't look up" (humans stupid) or "Avatar" (human bad)
I guess my point- which I think we're mostly in agreement with- is that the trilogy was really complex, rather than being "humans stupid" or "humans bad" (or even "humans good"). I love my space opera (Peter Hamilton gets my love) but I also love those really good complex scifi stories such as this.
RIP. I hope it's not related to the work env...
Full back to the office? I am experiencing it right now and honestly hate it. After work in quiet room alone for couple years I am forced to sit with another 11 individuals in open office. My mental state is really bad. There is only one solution - find new job. I even don’t care anymore about my stocks vesting in autumn.
Till you find a new job try listening to white noise on your headphones, it mitigates some of the open office shittiness.
https://noises.online/
https://noises.online/
If it's possible, take a break between jobs.
Poor taste to use this as a platform for your back to office complaints.
Are you tone deaf? The comment you’re replying to is softly stating that going back into the office is making them feel suicidal.
This is a perfect venue to discuss that…
This is a perfect venue to discuss that…
Due to forced back to office somebody must drop their remote master studies. Somebody will not see pregnant wife whole day. Somebody will not be able to pick/bring kids from/to school. Another one must cancel his weight loss program during lunch break (funny enough, this guy is the most productive and kindest one in the whole floor). It’s rude silent layoff, only management wins reducing headcount with such clever measures.
Please forgive a tangent on this terrible news, but do Google and Waymo share the same office building in NYC?
[deleted]
Interesting. Google and USPS are among the most trusted organizations in the US. They also both have a reputation for being good to work at for different socioeconomic classes. The former has some rate of people killing themselves and the latter has some rate of people killing others to the degree that they're now slang for flipping your shit.
I wonder what the difference is.
I wonder what the difference is.
Google is among the most trusted organizations in the US? That doesn't seem right.
Why not? They've pretty much only provided great products to the average consumer. Google and Amazon have a great positive direct impact on most Americans' lives. Here's a report from direct surveys: https://morningconsult.com/most-trusted-brands-2020/
Most people don't really care about a Doubleclick pixel or Amazon gazumping sellers with an Amazon Basics thing. For many, the latter is a positive thing and a trusted brand.
Most people don't really care about a Doubleclick pixel or Amazon gazumping sellers with an Amazon Basics thing. For many, the latter is a positive thing and a trusted brand.
Don't make me point at the sign...
https://killedbygoogle.com/
That's just one example, and I really don't care enough to list more reasons.
https://killedbygoogle.com/
That's just one example, and I really don't care enough to list more reasons.
It would appear most people don't care about those products, then.
I scrolled through and didn't care about the first page. Maybe Hangouts? And I have free GSuite still so don't know why that's on the list.
I scrolled through and didn't care about the first page. Maybe Hangouts? And I have free GSuite still so don't know why that's on the list.
"Most" people don't trust any of the companies on the link you listed. USPS, which had the #1 spot on the trusted list, is trusted by less than half of US adults (42%).
You can be one of the most trusted companies while still being hated by most americans.
You can be one of the most trusted companies while still being hated by most americans.
That number is for those who trust it "a lot". The answers go from trust not at all, distrust a little, don't know / can't say, trust some, trust a lot. The 42% is trust a lot. The "trust some" is about that much again.
But you'll have to pay for Brand Intelligence to get that breakdown. Absent that breakdown, you should trust your prior for whether "trust some" is under 8% on a product that has "trust a lot" is 42% and whether or not the most likely value for "trust some" is under 8% on a brand that has "trust a lot" at 42%.
But you'll have to pay for Brand Intelligence to get that breakdown. Absent that breakdown, you should trust your prior for whether "trust some" is under 8% on a product that has "trust a lot" is 42% and whether or not the most likely value for "trust some" is under 8% on a brand that has "trust a lot" at 42%.
> slang for flipping your shit
This is because there was a string of postal-worker incidents in the 80s or 90s (I forget) which grabbed the nation's attention. I don't think USPS actually has a murder problem.
This is because there was a string of postal-worker incidents in the 80s or 90s (I forget) which grabbed the nation's attention. I don't think USPS actually has a murder problem.
Last one was within a decade, apparently. https://www.postal-reporter.com/blog/ex-postal-worker-accuse...
An ongoing problem, with at least one per decade and more than one for most since the 70s
An ongoing problem, with at least one per decade and more than one for most since the 70s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_postal_killings
Shocking list. Of course, one must factor the number of employees, and this list is over a 50-year period.
Shocking list. Of course, one must factor the number of employees, and this list is over a 50-year period.
There are many issues regarding mental health, so speculation is that. Speculation. There is a a correlation that it's the second Google employee to die by sucide. That's not clickbait, just journalism.
"An engineer who endured and passed Google's exhausting Whiteboard interviews and ambiguous organizational chart, finally reached his breaking point."
[deleted]
[deleted]
zelphirkalt(1)
mmmeee22(1)
Folks dealing with mental health issues might end their lives for a variety of factors. This is very sad to hear, but the headline (and article) that attempts to connect an employer to a person's death without any evidence is unfair.
Note: I do not work for Google.