John Lasseter taking a leave of absence amid reports of inappropriate behavior
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
I didn't hear anything about this through the grapevine, but then again Tools was probably 95% male at the time.
> I was in the Studio Tools group in the late 90s
Pour one out for menv! That was fun software to work on.
Nice algorithms, good movies, dirtbag.
Edit: found the link
https://pando.com/2014/03/25/newly-unsealed-documents-show-s...
* Steve Jobs / CEO
* Eric Schmidt / CEO
* Arnnon Ghesuri / HR
* Shona Brown / HR
They were all supporting these illegal practices and went unpunished.
I can tell from experience there is very little candor or honesty unless there is a convention to specifically address that concern and that convention is continually supervised by a dedicated staff. The more challenging or bad things get the more true this becomes.
The only staffs that doesn't have an honesty problem are those few rare groups who have largely automated away most of their daily work and fully exposed those automation processes for open evaluation.
I suppose it is human nature that the more incompetent and lower confidence a staff section becomes the less honest and transparent they try to be. In reflection, candor is actually a really great measure of confidence and competence.
The reason you need a dedicated convention and dedicated staff to solve this problem is because the boss never sees what the minions are hiding or what they fail to report unless somebody does a deep dive into their work and fully documents their efficiency and qualifies their quality of work.
1. Do you know this person well and do they respond enthusiastically positive toward you?
2. Have you discussed your feelings towards them and have they responded enthusiastically positive towards them?
3. Have you discussed the things you want to do and have they responded enthusiastically positive towards them?
As an average looking guy who has had no trouble finding many romantic partners, let me say this, if your success hinges upon overwhelming surprise then you are doing something VERY wrong. If you are worried about it no longer feeling in the moment after asking for consent, let me assure you that if they want you as bad as they should, it won't be given a second thought.
I've gotta believe you can be a decent person and still do great things. Otherwise, what's the point? No need to excuse bad behavior, maybe by excusing it, we make it possible.
If predators got run out of industries instead of being allowed to stick around for decades (Hastert, Weinstein, Paterno, Spacey, Trump, the media is even starting to turn on Bill Clinton), then we wouldn't have to be so disappointed. It's not acceptable.
But ironically, you might accidentally have come across the reason this doesn't happen. Things that "everyone knows" aren't actionable until there's hard evidence and accusers on the record, and then afterwards, we all pretend like "everyone knew" and chose to do nothing.
From the news - A former Pixar employee requesting anonymity says Lasseter's leave of absence statement is "ridiculous" and "trivializing this behavior." The employee adds, "To sum this up as unwanted hugs is belittling and demeaning. If it was just unwanted hugs, he wouldn't be stepping down."
Battery in common law is basically any unlawful offensive/unwanted physical contact, though various jurisdictions limit or define this very differently.
So it's not that kissing or grabbing is specifically called out, but that any physical contact to the extent that it is unwanted (battery and assault both depend on the recipients subjective views in common law; in codified versions this may be different) and/or seen as insulting or offensive in the relevant jurisdiction is likely to be battery unless specific other criteria comes into play.
A challenge is that in some instances you may be thought to "silently consent". E.g. in the UK this very explicitly comes into play with ordinary contact in a crowd, and presumably all jurisdictions will recognize this in some form or other. But absent codified rules, precisely what/how/when you may be considered to "silently consent" to may vary wildly in different common law jurisdiction depending on details of precedent setting case law up through the ages and changing social expectations.
E.g. a lot of people would likely have expectations of a higher level of "silent consent" on a night club dance floor, for example - but conversely because battery is largely down to the subjective judgement of the victim, my ex is due in court tomorrow because some guy grabbed her ass in a night club and refusing to apologize (admittedly "helped" massively by the guy lying to the police about it once things escalated)
This is a phenomenal point. If the "moment" is so fragile, that it can be totally destroy by asking for consent, then it's also very likely too fragile to take any action.
If you think "if I ask, then it might ruin the moment", then you also have a huge chance of making someone very uncomfortable.
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
I'm reminded of this quote every time another one of these scandals breaks.
That said, even if it's not clear exactly where the line is—it's pretty easy to see that certain actions would be far across it, and that's largely what's come up in recent allegations. Though I don't think all of them have been super clear cut. 'Simple' is too strong here.
This is a big part of the problem. These sexual harassment allegations are almost entirely arising in contexts where sex should be off the table. Society’s expectations of aggressive male behavior are entirely irrelevant.
[1] People hate being solicited so much that we created a nationwide donotcall registry for it! And that’s with no power dynamics in play!
If there was part of my above comment which seemed to you emotionally rather than logically motivated, I'd be happy to clarify it.
It seems from your response that you think I'm arguing against having that line drawn (the one which takes sex categorically out of the professional context). So to clarify: that is very very far both from what I have said and how I feel about things. I think that line is very important and absolutely should be in place.
But that question is unrelated to the matter of complexity and simplicity which I intended to discuss (though my interlocutors so far have insisted on skirting the subject). For instance—as I already covered in my first comment—is it 'simple' how to define that line?
Therein lies the problem with these situations and why it's so important to have these discussions and for people to be honest. It's entirely possible I have sexually harassed someone and didn't realize it (though I doubt it, since I've never romantically pursued someone I worked with), simply by expressing interest in them. To not have the discussion is to remove agency from some parties and freedom from others.
This is pretty disingenuous. You are assuming famous people with lots of money and power don't have anyone they work with who want, like, pretty badly, to be 'solicited'. In other words, those who desire solicitation aren't going to be just indifferent about it, as one would be if they for some reason opted out of a do-not-call list. Or were you imagining those folks lusting over the prospect of telemarketing calls? ;)
Why though?
Do you also think that all romances/marriages that started in office/professional settings are bad, and should be stopped?
Else, why would socializing (in other aspects, like being friends, drinking, talking etc) is OK, but "bringing sex into the equation" is not? How is sex different?
Is it just because a puritanical society considers it different than being social in other ways, a leftover from when it was considered dirty/sin?
Or because of the potential to mess it up? Well, socializing otherwise can mess up too (can turn into extreme hate, bloody office politics, etc). Nothing is perfect.
Though, "don't grope people who don't want it" and "don't masturbate in front of others that didn't ask you for it" sounds pretty easy to attain without banning all romantic/sexual relationships from a professional environment.
After all, we don't want those things happening in singles bars either -- it's not like work is something different in that regard.
The good stuff though, e.g. too people falling in a romantic relationship (or fucking like rabbits in an office closet) why not?
>Women aren’t sitting around wishing their boss (or guys from work generally) would hit on them.
Women in general not, but SOME women do. And that's for boss. If you take it to "guys from work" that's an ever bigger percentage.
So what if it is? It's completely unacceptable to cause harm to others just because in a better society that harm wouldn't happen. We're responsible for the consequences of our actions in the real world, not in what we wished the world was.
So it's 2017, they should get over it.
>It's completely unacceptable to cause harm to others just because in a better society that harm wouldn't happen.
The above doesn't parse. What's the "harm to others" you imply?
What I'm saying is sex itself is not harmful/sinful (assuming both parties are consenting), so having sex with a coworker is not much different (or "bad") than having beers with them.
>We're responsible for the consequences of our actions in the real world, not in what we wished the world was.
You got it backwards: mere thinking/religious belief/whatever that something is bad/sinful/whatever doesn't make it bad in the real world.
Of course. This is the safest policy for men in the workplace, for sure.
> (which is how guys interact with each other).
Well, not really? Even assuming no attraction, some guys in all-male social settings bring sex into things fairly frequently, both in general conversation, and in teasing each other. The latter of these is even intended to cause discomfort, and that often happens among friends.
I think it's a really bad idea to say to men: just act the way you would if there was no sexual attraction. That's a good way to guarantee a relatively high perception of sexual harassment, even where none was consciously intended. It's not enough to avoid intentional sexual harassment. Men must not even come close to anything we see as a line not to be crossed. If there is a power imbalance, the line seems to blur for a lot of people, meaning that men must then restrict their behavior near it to continue to be clearly on the non-harassing side.
Good news, though: the vast majority of the behavior that is being called out in the last few months seems so clearly on the harassing side of the line that a bit of caution would seem to go far in keeping clearly on the non-harassing side. For the most part, I assume these men were not surprised that they were seen as harassing. I don't think we're at the point where men have to go full Pence to avoid perceptions or accusations of sexual harassment.
Nor do we need to minimize them. You're talking as if men are the only people who might want to pursue romantic relationships. You are also proposing a world in which we limit the pursuit of romantic relationships to select places. You can't do it in a professional environment, nor any clubs where there is a strata of levels (say sports clubs or martial arts, for example), nor trade or professional organizations. You can do it at the bar, using online dating or in designated areas. Even if people thought that would be a good idea, there's no way it could ever work. It's entirely natural for people in the same profession to pursue romantic relationships and they are adults who have a right to do so.
Furthermore, sexual harassment doesn't just exist in the workplace. Women are harassed everywhere: walking down the street, in bars, online, everywhere. Saying "no harassment in the workplace" doesn't even come close to addressing the issue. An open discussion does far more than that.
This isn't to say I don't believe there isn't inappropriate behaviors for the workplace; taking your pants down or kissing someone unsolicited is never appropriate. Nor would it be appropriate outside of work. But sexual harassment can be far more subtle and the line can only be drawn with communication.
Humans are not Vulcan-style compartmentalizing creatures, and no rule can stop love (and lust, contrary to puritanical religious-derived beliefs, lust is also ok), etc 100% from emerging. Tons of very happy marriages and relationships started in professional settings.
Some consider a hug sexual harassment, some consider touching a knee. What about putting your hand on a person's back? Does it make a difference what part of their back, if so exactly how and where?
Sexual harassment should be far more about intention rather than the specific part of the body touched (excluding the obvious no-go areas of genitals and breasts). Generally you should be allowed 1 strike, for mis-reading signals.
In a society where men are expected to initiate contact, this is a fraught situation.
It is not a simple answer.
Can you imagine the following scene:
"Gee John, you did a great job there, I would like to shake your hand, or even pat your back (only near the shoulder mind you and no lower than a line formed by the bottom of your shoulder blades). Do you think that would be permissible? I want to reassure you that this touch will not be sexual in any way."
As for patting backs, do avoid doing so. Many of us don't like it even if it's totally non-sexual.
...and many of us do like being patted on the back (non-condescending of course).
Perhaps in the future, we will all have to work in an environment where no touching of any sort is allowed, ever, but I can't help thinking that would be a step backwards.
The couples who found sex and/or love (and even marriage) in the workplace, would argue that it's appropriate.
It's only when it happens against the other's will that's inappropriate.
Merely some office decree saying it's not appropriate doesn't make it so (and if two people click, it won't fight human nature to connect, including in this way, anyway, people will do what they do).
You can ban sexual advances in professional contexts, and achieve substantial compliance, and we should, just like we've done for racist statements. (There are things that Nixon or LBJ said that even Trump won't say!) The opposite viewpoint serves men to the detriment of women. I've never met a woman who said to me "you know, I just wish I could date more guys from work." The truth is (especially in the age of Tinder), most women don't really have to try very hard to get a date. So there is little benefit to them from social rules that make it okay to solicit sexual relationships in professional settings.
In exchange for those sparse benefits, there's real burdens. You're right about the puritanism in one sense: in America, work isn't just something women do to keep themselves busy. Today, work is their livelihood. It determines whether they have healthcare, where they can live, what schools they can send their kids to. Men get to go through their professional lives focused on work. They make work friends and establish mentoring relationships, and they can simply assume that those relationships are about work. Women don't get to do that. That coworker you're friendly with because you share similar ideas about TDD? Oh, he's actually just being friendly because he wants to have sex with you. That meeting with an investor that might be able to introduce you to people you want to know to launch your startup? Oh, he thinks it's a date.
I was stating that not doing what is claimed in this case (kissing, touching - sexual harassment) is simple, and it is. That's obviously not appropriate behavior. Most of these recent scandals include behavior that either isn't appropriate in a work environment or isn't appropriate ever. There's no discussion to be had, not being Harvey Weinstein is easy.
Add to that the fact our society continues to push the idea that the men which women 'really want' are aggressive in initiating sexual situations. A man who does something as timid as asking whether he may kiss a girl can assure himself of inadequacy. (Not that there aren't plenty of exceptions to our media supporting this idea—but it's still implied pervasively. And some of it probably is just human nature.)
You got into "general principles", which as someone pointed out isn't relevant to a work environment. Superiors don't need to be worried about sexual inadequacy in relation to coworkers. We can say that sexual harassment is is complicated issue, and it is, but there's also behavior that shouldn't be happening by any standard and isn't difficult to avoid.
That said, your statement, "With these scandals, it really is simple: don't sexually harass or assault others." was about the general issue, not the particular one. Additionally, both the parent and grandparent comments are general.
> We can say that sexual harassment is is complicated issue, and it is, but there's also behavior that shouldn't be happening by any standard and isn't difficult to avoid.
That's pretty much exactly what my comment said.
No, nowhere in that post did westoncb say anything was hard to avoid doing.
If the situation actually matched the father/daughter analogy you gave, it would be super simple. Unfortunately it doesn't look like that analogy works.
To pretend that the "correct answer" is always so straightforward is to assume that people never make it messy by addressing your assumptions and actively trying to change your mind about it.
We might not need a hard line. An acknowledgement of those that went way over the line is proving to be a huge step forward for society. Hopefully we can be left _only_ with ambiguous cases when they occur.
It's not normal for someone known by everyone around them to be a harasser to be able to continue their acts.
I recommend reading "The missing stair"[0] for an account of how normal this actually is.
[0] http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2012/06/missing-stair.html
2000 years later "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" remains controversial...
People need to be able to discuss this on a philosophical level without automatically being accused of taking one side or the other.
What the quote was eliciting is the idea that we are, "all flawed" and you should look at yourself before you judge, which is utter bullshit. I am flawed (a person), but I can still judge the others and what is acceptable socially to a higher standard than my own (assumed) actions. To not do so is to enter in a pact where we race to the bottom lest be judged to a higher standard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
We each embody multiple simultaneous facets that don't always agree, but they all need to hold society accountable while being individually flawed. And we cannot turn an eye against the flaws for the protection of our selves.
> The _italics_ doesn't make your comment more poignant.
Not sure why you thought I was shooting for poignance. I was drawing attention to the fact that your statement was based on an assumption, since that was the most important thing and people like to skim.
"We feel like we have been put in a position where we need to speak for ourselves. The break neck speed at which journalist have been naming the next perpetrator renders some reporting irresponsible and, in fact counterproductive for the people who do want to tell their stories.
In this instance, the Hollywood Reporter does not speak for us. We did not leave Pixar because of unwanted advance. That is untrue. We parted ways because of creative and, more importantly philosophical differences."
It looks like The Hollywood Reporter didn't follow through by talking to the original victims.
THR made repeated requests for comment to Jones and McCormack starting on Nov. 7 but received no response.
The story does quote other victims and witnesses, so I don't think your characterization is accurate. It looks like solid journalism.
yet somehow they consistently booked very interesting guests. i'll give you that, but that's what the show had going for it, not the eponymous interviewer.
He was absolutely atrocious at the actual interviewing part.
He would constantly make stupid paragraph-long statements and then at the end ask “don’t you agree?”, then when the guest started to explain that no the statement was wrong or oversimplified, he would interrupt them and repeat his point again. He was constantly shitting all over guests who he disagreed with or didn’t think were cool enough, telling them they were wrong and trying to get them to repeat whatever he happened to think, even if they were world-class experts on some topic he didn’t know anything about. He was constantly kissing up like crazy to anyone he thought was rich or famous or powerful, in a way that was really uncomfortable to watch (his numerous sycophantic interviews with Tom Friedman make my skin crawl). He never seemed to listen very closely to what anyone was saying: I don’t think I ever heard a poignant or insightful follow-up question in the hundreds of his interviews I have seen. Instead he would often interrupt right in the middle of some complicated interesting thought, and throw in a non-sequitur, jolting the conversation to a new (often stupid) topic.
My favorite Charlie Rose moment was sometime like 15 years ago when he had on (if I recall correctly) Bill Joy. Charlie made some incredibly banal and obvious paragraph-long statement with a question mark at the end, and then looked at the guest, who was just staring at him. There was a long uncomfortable pause, after which the response was, “well, duh.”
If you want to see a stark comparison, find any week where the same guest was interviewed by both Charlie Rose and Terry Gross, and listen to the two interviews back to back.
Terry Gross has big flaws, the biggest of which is how she approaches her interviews much more from a political activist's lens, to the point of being absolutely obnoxious about certain topics or people. There are a wide array of issues I would never want to hear her interview someone about.
The nature of interview shows is that often topics are inherently political (e.g. interviewing a politician, a journalist, an economist, or a political biographer), but Terry Gross is one of the least political interviewers in the media (apart from maybe some late-night comedy hosts who do 5-minute bits), and frequently gets her guests to talk deeply about their lives and families and hobbies even when they originally came to discuss some political topic or shill their latest book or whatever.
She approaches her interviews with careful preparation every time (e.g. she actually reads the books), universal politeness, and close listening, and responds to what her guests are saying with interesting topical follow-up questions rather than sticking with a canned script.
You might be misinterpreting knowing something about the topic (as Rose typically does not) as “political activism”.
I quite strongly agree with you btw. The fact that Charlie Rose is held up as some high standard of interviews should be an inditement of the entire profession in the US because he - compared to actual maters like David Frost, Louis Theroux, and so on - is quite poor.
It was his format that was great, not him.
And unlike Gross, he kept his own politics closer to his chest, which, in combination with everything else, gave him access to everyone.
Who else is out there from a younger generation on the way up? Weirdly enough, like the other person said, the Hot Ones guy is the closest I can think of. Maybe someone from the podcast realm, but it's hard to think of someone with the range and intellect. I guess it will be a more fractious world.
I agree it would be nicer very to have more of that kind of content but it doesn’t make him very good at it - just one of the only ones doing it
I fear that it will be difficult for anybody to re-create this atmosphere and find enough of an audience to remain on air (I was always surprised Charlie Rose was able to stay on air, honestly), and I doubt that anybody will even try. But I believe there are many great podcasts that can fill the void - I'll just have to create my own dark, quiet, distraction free place to listen to them in.
Everyone's legacy is up for review.
Nobody is safe.
Not even Tom Hanks.
Time to stop idolizing celebrities.
If it comes out that he was also a sleaze bag along with Charlie Rose, Al Franken, Jeffrey Tambor, (along with an incredible family movie director in the rumor circles) I don't know what to think of Hollywood and my childhood heroes anymore.
Tom Hanks, if you have to say anything, do so now rather than later!
Seems like it doesn't. It may be that I'm from Eastern Europe, where the social aspects are a little bit more pronounced compared to more puritan countries like the United States, but wtf is wrong with hugging? Honest question. Also, I know I used to drink heavily at "company social events" and thank God I was not let go because of that. Well, to be honest almost all of my co-workers should have been let go if I were to judge them based on their drinking outside of working hours.
Hugging by itself is harmless, but when you're physically embracing someone and forcing a hug on them (especially if you're in a position of power) you're basically robbing them from their chance to exercise free will, which is of course problematic.
“That was never my intent,” he wrote. “Collectively, you mean the world to me, and I deeply apologize if I have let you down. I especially want to apologize to anyone who has ever been on the receiving end of an unwanted hug or any other gesture they felt crossed the line in any way, shape, or form.”
It's dead wrong. The boundaries are defined by society as a whole. The way he puts it basically says that if you don't set your boundaries, then don't complain if you are hurt.
Then there's people that actually like being touched, especially by close friends which, yes, can be colleagues, and can be people above them in the chain of command.
TL;DR it's a minefield, best to do nothing and stay away from people.
Relevant quote regarding Feynman:
…in many ways Richard was a sexist. Whenever it came time for his daily bowl of soup he would look around for the nearest "girl" and ask if she would fetch it to him. It did not matter if she was the cook, an engineer, or the president of the company. I once asked a female engineer who had just been a victim of this if it bothered her. "Yes, it really annoys me," she said. "On the other hand, he is the only one who ever explained quantum mechanics to me as if I could understand it." That was the essence of Richard's charm.
It's complex. You can respect their achievements while separating the other half. And until you really know someone, it's not good to lump the two halves together in your mind.
Agree to disagree. If people would tell them to go to hell from the beginning, their achievements would go to someone else and we would all be better for it.
It doesn't work like that unfortunately.
Billions of people over hundreds of years produces lots of opportunities.
There is no doubt in my mind that we would've made the same progress with any other company, albeit perhaps cosmetic differences.
I think this is translatable to most other advancements. It's nearly always iterational, and either someone's first, different people discover something independently or it's a mashup of separate discoveries.
History makes geniuses, smart people exist everywhere.
> Well, someone only has to give me the principle, and I get the idea. All during the next day I built up my psychology differently: I adopted the attitude that those bar girls are all bitches, that they aren’t worth anything, and all they’re in there for is to get you to buy them a drink, and they’re not going to give you a goddamn thing; I’m not going to be a gentleman to such worthless bitches, and so on. I learned it till it was automatic.
Further excerpts and discussion here: https://restructure.wordpress.com/2009/08/07/sexist-feynman-...
He notices one of the women who made some excuse about a party that night has been talking with the MC frequently, and surmises correctly that they are married – turns out the woman wasn’t actually looking for romance and was just leading Feynman on to get free drinks out of him. The permanent singer at the club had been introducing women to him after first telling the women he was a big spender.
Feynman befriends the couple (singer and MC), and they talk about how plenty of rich men at the bar keep spending money on the girls there without getting anywhere romantically. The MC tries to teach Feynman about the social roles people take on at a bar. The key lesson is that a man who buys a woman a drink up front is unlikely to end up getting the one night stand he wants, but if he refuses to buy her anything, his chances will be better. Feynman tried it out by getting a girl to pay him back for a sandwich, and a few hours later she came by at the end of the night and invited him to her room, so the lesson apparently worked.
The “bitches” part is some kind of temporary psychological reprogramming he’s doing on himself for a day or two so that he can bring himself to objectify people against his usual inclination, so that he can try the experiment. It’s clear in context that he doesn’t think all women are “bitches”.
Feynman tried it one more time some while later on someone who wasn’t a traveling singer, flirting a bit with a girl but then asking if she would sleep with him before he would buy her a drink. She agreed.
His conclusion at the end is: “So it worked even with an ordinary girl! But no matter how effective the lesson was, I never really used it after that. I didn’t enjoy doing it that way. But it was interesting to know that things worked much differently from how I was brought up.”
Note: I’m not making any value judgments here, just recounting the story.
I stop suddenly and I say to her, “You… are worse than a WHORE!”
It's probably better if people just read it.
The point of the story is that misogynist jackasses can be successful at finding one-night stands a bar but he didn’t enjoy it, so he only ever tried it twice.
Maybe you think that is damning evidence of some inherently irredeemable character flaw, but let he/she who hasn’t ever once spent an evening being an asshole (intentionally for an amateur sociology experiment or otherwise) cast the first stone.
Sadly, in both these cases, he never considered the possibility that a woman’s sexual consent and worth should not be monetized in the first place.
(b) Feynman never said that not buying her something was “disrespectful” (though the MC did say that the man should (1) be disrespectful and also (2) not buy a woman anything up front). The “disrespectful” part was insulting someone or directly propositioning a stranger for sex in return for a drink.
You are reading a whole lot more into the story about Feynman’s “assumptions” and “considerations” than is supportable by the text. Overall I would say your comment is considerably more condescending and offensive than the story.
If you want to give Feynman crap about his other treatment of women throughout his life, so be it, but this story is pretty thin evidence for whatever case you’re trying to make.
This is the advice offered to him:
“Therefore,” he continued, “under no circumstances be a gentleman! You must disrespect the girls. Furthermore, the very first rule is, don’t buy a girl anything –– not even a package of cigarettes — until you’ve asked her if she’ll sleep with you, and you’re convinced that she will, and that she’s not lying.”
This is his conclusion to that advice:
The master was right. So the lesson was terrific!
You can take from it whatever you want.
Edit: I read “the post”. Either the author has poor reading comprehension and largely failed to understand the content of the story (maybe Feynman can be blamed for not having written it in a clearer way), or she is being disingenuous.
This is never an excuse because millions of other men were products of the same time and didn't behave like this, FFHS.
Then he moved on to directly state his intentions, which actually worked, because those women were actually open to having one night stands. But that move was not possible for him unless he convinced himself that women in question is worth less then nothing.
But, if his nice guy play would work and they would really fall in love with his nice guysness and then had sex with him, they would be really hugely disappointed next morning cause he was in it for sex only. So I guess it is very good thing all players except him were experienced enough to recognize the situation and seen through his nice guy act.
https://www.brainpickings.org/2017/10/17/richard-feynman-arl...
Hopefully over time we all learn to temper the bad while growing the good.
Some do a better job than others, but also we can never know the totality, bad or good, of any person.
In my opinion that’s important to bear in mind when people disappoint us, or we disappoint ourselves.
Exactly! Is there a single person who doesn't have good and bad aspects? Nope. The balance isn't the same between everyone, sure, but 'no one is perfect'.
Also some are psychologically disturbed due to various reasons and those people need therapy and mere reactionary punishment will not improve matters in the long run (for society).
It would be weird in any case to assume that, erm, career people are just as heroic in other spheres of their life.
But the man did revolutionize our understanding of physics.
So take the good with the bad.
I specifically contrast that with the many recent reports of deliberate abuses of power or outright assault. There was still a knowledge, even back in the not too distant past, that those things were wrong, as evidenced by the fact that so many men tried to keep their behavior hidden.
https://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2017/11/iconic-hacker-...
Comments are interesting. Apparently his was a known issue and people were explicitly warned to stay away from him at the conferences and such.
Why are people supporting this? It's clearly a farce.