Comment by isubkhankulov | Hacker News Reader

Comment by isubkhankulov | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'm not trying to defend Uber here but there are two sides of every story and I'm sure we'll find out more in the coming weeks and months one way or another.

I could see how many people could jump to conclusions about Uber after reading the original blog post. However, by headcount- it is a medium to large company at this point while at the same time has an uncertain future and still taking big bets. I could see how that could cause chaos in some or all areas of the company.

Maybe- the blog post provide one point of view into Silicon Valley culture/gender dynamics. Maybe- this culture often exists within engineering departments of elite companies (vs the business/marketing/sales side).

There are a lot of moving parts in the original post: HR department acting unprofessionally, manufactured performance reviews and awkward IM's.

I've encountered situations where new employees just didn't fit in well with their coworkers, for a variety of reasons. They typically don't last long as employees. Usually a year or less.

> I'm not trying to defend Uber here

Well, insofar as you present an alternative reality wherein Uber didn't do anything exceptional (by the standards of their peers), you're defending Uber.

And then "I've encountered situations where new employees just didn't fit in well with their coworkers".

If the engineer's claims are true, what happened to her and to others has nothing whatsoever to do with culture fit.

Right now all you know is that blog post. There's no denying that there may be another side, which can only be known after they investigate. That's the basic principle of our legal system... why wouldn't it apply here, despite this still being handled privately within the company?

Is Hacker News somehow now part of the legal system?

Assuming not, then invoking its protections here is ridiculous. We have a robust legal system because it has great power, power we must use fairly as we create a stable society.

But people are welcome to form opinions on whatever basis they please. And that can include things like Uber's history of terrible behavior and the history of sexist incidents at other tech companies.

"There's no denying that there may be another side"

But.. There probably isn't right? Like, 95% chance there is no other side. With everything that you know about Uber, would any of things mentioned surprise you?

> Right now all you know is that blog post

It wasn't posted anonymously. It's a blog post from a well-regarded female engineer with a lot to lose (her career, and possible financial penalties) if her claims turn out to be made up. The basic atmosphere she describes has been corroborated by other former Uber engineers. And a number of prominent female engineers at other companies have reported near-identical experiences in their own careers.

If I was a betting man, I'd put a lot of money on her claims being born out by any even-handed investigation (though, as other people here have commented, Uber's investigation is unlikely to be particularly neutral).

Additionally, nobody on HN is under any obligation to assume that anyone is innocent until proven guilty — that's up to the (criminal) courts.

Of course, you can make any assumption and come to any conclusion you'd like.

But you still don't know.

No, and I never claimed I did.

But I suppose I do question the motivations of those who care deeply about presenting the "other side" when there are allegations of sexist practices in the workplace. In this particular scenario, the other side is a company with incredibly deep pockets and priority access to world leaders. They've dealt with far worse (e.g. threatening to stalk journalists), and they'll be fine.

In fact, an exec who threatened to "expose" a personal detail about a journalist who had written negatively about Uber is still employed there. Fancy that.

To be clear, you're questioning my motivations (perhaps implying I condone sexual harassment)? Or you're questioning the original commenter?

Talking about the original commenter's "other side".

How much would you bet? If you were forced to take one side of a bet, with varying odds, what percentage likelyhood do you think that everything is true? 60? 80? 90? 99%?

You don't have any proof that the moon isn't made of cheese, but do you go around saying "Uhh, have you ever been to the moon? You still don't know".

I've heard nothing but awful things about Uber since before they tried to recruit me years ago. Everybody I know who's met the CEO specifically used the word 'sociopath' to describe him, along with a litany of other unpleasant terms.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com