I wonder if there’s a correlation with being a tech company that was founded in direct relation to the internet vs. being founded in relation to personal / enterprise computing, and how that sort of seeds the initial culture.
The "stating my appearance, dress, and race" is just bizarre. My most charitable interpretation is that they're trying to help visually impaired people to imagine what the speakers look like. Perhaps there are visually impaired users here who could comment on whether that's something they'd find helpful?
We have hour long pronoun training videos for onboarding; have spent millions on DEI consultants from things like Paradigm to boutique law firms; tied part of our corporate bonus to company DEI initiatives.
Not sure why anyone uses FF anymore. We barely do any development on it. You basically just sit here and collect between 150-300k depending on your level as long as you can stomach the bullshit.
He would dismiss any whiff of intersectionality as "dividing the working class in the interests of bourgeoisie."
That was 2017.
I am sure the response to that case made smart people avoid sticking their necks out.
For me it probably was the straw that broke the camels back for me. I was in the hiring pipeline at that point and while I doubt that they would have ended up hiring me anyway, I think my absolute lack of enthusiasm might have simplified that decision.
You probably made the right choice. Google had already been in decline at that point, but it was clear that Sundar was no leader, just somebody Larry Page appointed to maintain the peace between his lieutenants so the engine could keep printing money.
Sundar absolutely had to fire Damore because he came out with the arguments like that women are too neurotic for high stress jobs. The thing is even Damore's more reasonable points were ignored and Google's ideological echo chamber only strengthened.