oneshot908

And even as an employee, if you tell them over and over again that customers keep asking for that feature, they disagree with you over and over again.

Time is the only nonrenewable resource. And you just lost some reading this response. Act accordingly.

I know of a team at an AI-oriented company that uses Reinforcement Learning to find cheats and exploits in 2600 games as their happy hour activity. No need to work late (though one could), just start that training run and hope for the best.

I think your understanding of the tech industry is rather unlike mine. I have been a manager previously and there is quite a bit of documentation and process involved in terminating anyone, so much so that a lot of really bad apples can jump teams without getting terminated if they time it well.

Even when they're caught, they get put on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) which is shorthand for giving them 60 days to find a new job or to turn their life around internally. Usually, it leads to the former, sometimes the latter. I've seen both.

It's an imperfect and biased process. But the attempt is usually made because HR fears unjustified termination lawsuits despite the "at will" employee status of just about everyone.

Unless they've tried to hack the company's servers for private data, I've never seen anyone fired on the spot without the above process unfolding. Maybe your experience differs?

PS I also think Charles Manson and The Unabomber were unambiguously guilty. That doesn't change my opinion that they deserved the trial they got.

PPS If as amyjess seemingly suggests that female professors at MIT repeatedly filed complaints against him and nothing happened, well then carry on Twitter mob, good job, seriously.

That's one of the purposes of HR. Watch any corporate harassment training video if you don't believe me.

TLDR: the accusation of harassment is 100% determined by the accuser. The determination of whether harassment occurred OTOH is decided by HR after judging the merits (or lack thereof) of the case.

I see no reason why MIT shouldn't have proceeded similarly. And while you might argue that's not 100% impartial, that's a lot better than a Twitter mob (to me at least).

Given the piles of video and text of Stallman being Stallman, and the "Hot Ladies" bit on his office door, do you really think they would have high-fived his conduct and told him to carry on? I'm cynical, but I'm not that cynical.

Or let's put this another way. The Unabomber and Charles Manson got their due process. Are you saying Stallman is worse than both of them? So I'm guessing you guys downvoting me no longer believe in our legal system? That'll end well I'm sure.

You assemble the evidence before as impartial a committee as you can, and you let them make the decision. I think in this case Stallman is an offensive personality who says offensive things on company time using company equipment. That's going to be a no-brainer.

That said, I have a nagging worry from watching some videos of his behavior that he is mentally ill and there might be a backlash from that.

But why we can't allow a process like that to transpire before passing judgment is beyond me. Why wishing such an impartial judgment upon him is downvote worthy is really worrisome to me. That's not what western democracies are about as I understood them up to now.

I Just do not believe we should make career-ending decisions like this based on the rage of a mob on social media, that's literally a Black Mirror episode (and a really bad episode of The Orville as well). I believe their role is to raise awareness of situations like to the point where the above should transpire. Does holding that viewpoint now make me subject to "cancellation" as well?

Without "due process" Trial by Twitter(tm) is going to end like the Reign of Terror at the end of the French Revolution.

Stallman had said more than enough to merit his termination IMO, but he still deserved due process before such judgment was passed.

That discussion was reasonably settled a very long time ago and court cases established reasonable laws around it. Then one side demanded a do-over, in much the same way they are seeking do-overs for a lot of previously seemingly settled issues.

That's what robot lovers are for silly goose!