SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the not-an-essential-relationship dept.
Andy Rubin has taken a leave of absence from Essential Products following the disclosure of the circumstances of his departure from Google:
Essential founder and CEO Andy Rubin has taken a leave of absence from his new company for "personal reasons" following a report on the circumstances of his 2014 departure from Google. According to The Information, Rubin left Google shortly after an investigation found that he had maintained an "inappropriate relationship" with a woman who worked under him and filed a complaint to HR.
The nature of that relationship isn't detailed in the report, and Rubin's spokesperson Mike Sitrick denies the connection. "Any relationship that Mr. Rubin had while at Google was consensual," Sitrick tells The Information. "Mr. Rubin was never told by Google that he engaged in any misconduct while at Google and he did not, either while at Google or since." Rubin is said to have told Essential employees of his leave of absence on Monday after The Information informed Sitrick of its story.
The Information's information about the matter is not extensive. Here is the important paragraph:
Google initiated its investigation after an employee complained to the company's Human Resources division about her relationship with Mr. Rubin, according to three people familiar with the matter. The people declined to elaborate on the specific nature of the woman's complaint against Mr. Rubin.
Essential Products released a high-end Android smartphone in May and will release a "smart" speaker later this year.
Also at Engadget, 9to5Google, and Fast Company.
Update: Here is Essential's Bi-weekly AMA where they basically assured users that the company is still operating, business as usual.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aiwarrior on Friday December 01 2017, @01:34PM (26 children)
Good lord can we stop with this harassment thing? If there was a crime please report it to the authorities and let them handle it. Non-consensual relationship is tantamount to harassment, stalking or at worst rape.
Guys will try to get on with girls, sometimes overdoing it and getting a rejection and humiliation and it will go on to the end of ages. Get over it.
How do you suppose you get with a girl? Sign a contract? Good luck at getting straight answers out of women.
At some point there is a move and if this move is rejected there you are: A sexual harrasser or whatever. /s
No! You are a poor sod that should accept her decision and understand you crossed her limits and then yes, if you do it again then you are a fiend. She is also a poor girl because life would be easier to her if the guy had gotten that she was really not into him and made her unconfortable.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Immerman on Friday December 01 2017, @02:31PM
Where are you getting harassment from? Sounds to me like it was a third party that filed a complaint.
You know - the boss involved with one of your coworkers, you feel she's getting inappropriate special treatment, and complain because you feel her inappropriate perks are necessarily cutting into your own. There's only so much pie to share around after all.
Harassment is far from the only reason that vertical relationships in the chain of command are discouraged.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Immerman on Friday December 01 2017, @02:52PM (1 child)
Okay, rereading maybe your take is right.
But the courts are kind of the last resort - HR exists in large part to settle problems without escalating to involving the law - because pretty much everyone loses once you have to do that. Also, the law sets the bar *really* high on sexual harassment, following precedent set several decades ago when the law was first past. E.g. repeated vulgar overtures, non-consensual groping of breasts, and "just talking" about wanting to rape them doesn't necessarily cut it.
As for "How do you suppose you get with a girl?"
Rule 1 - if they say no. back off. It's not making a move that makes you a harasser. It's continuing to do so once you've been rejected. Playing hard to get has gone out of fashion, and your perceptions are biased by your desire - you're a lot more likely to see a game that isn't there than she is to be playing it.
Rule 2 - don't fuck down the chain of command. Even if you have no intention of abusing your power, the threat is always implicit in the power dynamic. If you're upset with an underling, that will almost certainly be reflected in your business relationship, even if it's a strictly personal problem. That's just human nature - vanishingly few people can completely partition such things off.
Rule 2.1 - if you insist on chasing someone you wield power over, you'd better be *way* more cautious and perceptive than normal, and accept a much gentler "no", because they're going to be juggling rejecting you against incurring your professional disfavor.
(Score: 4, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Friday December 01 2017, @06:54PM
Rule 0: Masturbating in front of the girl should happen at the end of the day, not the beginning.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Friday December 01 2017, @02:56PM (4 children)
There are a few simple rules in play here:
1. Don't date people you work with. That's the simplest way to avoid running afoul of HR policies, avoid sexual harassment suits, etc.
2. Consider using your words. Saying "I'd really like to kiss you right now" isn't going to get her saying "no" if she's interested. And if she says "no", and you respect that, you aren't a harasser.
3. If you're preferring non-verbal communication, then take your time and give her the chance to accept or reject with her words or actions what you want to do. Using that first kiss example again, if you approach slowly, that builds the anticipation if she wants to and allows her to move away if she doesn't. And again, respect her decision, whatever it is.
There are also quite a few women out there that prefer to take the initiative, in which case all of the above is reversed: Is she respecting your decisions and boundaries? Is she taking advantage of an imbalance of power (e.g. she's your boss)? Is she giving you a chance to reject her advances?
The idea that you can't be with somebody without committing an act of sexual harassment is one of those myths that predators use to convince guys to be on their side.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @04:02AM (3 children)
I'm glad me and my wife didn't follow this. Count off - who here besides me ended up happily married to a coworker?
One...
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Saturday December 02 2017, @03:38PM (2 children)
No other replies, so just you then.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @08:31PM (1 child)
Either less than 5 people read my post, or the happily qualifier disqualified them:
http://www.businessinsider.com/surprising-office-romance-statistics-2016-2 [businessinsider.com]
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Sunday December 03 2017, @12:03AM
TBH, there have never been any female co-workers where I am in heavy engineering, except an occasional snooty married middle aged woman as the director's secretary.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Friday December 01 2017, @04:47PM (15 children)
How do you suppose you get with a girl?
Tinder, or some other dating site. If she's on there, it's mostly guaranteed she's looking for dates. Try to "like" her, and if she "likes" you back, then she's interested and you can talk.
Honestly, a lot of things in society would be a lot better if everyone did all their dating online. Every other method of finding dating partners is fraught with huge problems and unlikely to turn out well.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Friday December 01 2017, @05:34PM (4 children)
This ^^^. At least by the time you meet that way it is established that you both want to meet someone, that you both like the sound of each other and that you both like the look of each other. It does not gurantee that you will like each other when you do meet because photos and descriptions can be misleading, and there are further factors that are hard to nail down and can only be felt on meeting. But it is the best possible start.
I met a number of girls through dating agencies (mostly pre-internet) and found I things went well (ie we dated >twice) in about about 1-in-5 cases (remember we had already exchanged photos and letters etc by this time we met). I have since calculated that if I had approached girls at random, (by the coffee machine at work for example), it would have worked out in only 1-in-1000 cases. That would have been even if I had pre-selected on age group and satisfactory appearance from my own point of view.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday December 01 2017, @05:53PM
Yeah, it amazes me how many people still think it's "weird" to meet people online, and somehow think it's still better to meet in person by chance at the grocery store or at parties, or worse, at bars.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday December 01 2017, @09:58PM (2 children)
I'd say they both have about the same track record, for basically the same reason: People almost universally aren't what they present themselves to be. Over the course of a relationship, you find out how they aren't what they present themselves to be, and have to decide whether, knowing that, you still want to be a part of the relationship. For example, very very few people will let you know online or offline or on a first date that they have a drug problem or gambling debts or an illness that will soon kill them, which are the kind of thing that you really need to know if you're going to be in an ongoing relationship with them.
Now, if you're the sort that just wants "Hello, wham bam thank you, goodbye", that largely doesn't matter (although please be using protection, duh). But if you're looking for something with more emotional connection and/or longer term, that dynamic comes into play.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Saturday December 02 2017, @12:06AM (1 child)
Of course people don't necessarily come out with the bad points straight off. Nevertheless, if on-line you can do some filtering before you meet.
If I approach a girl in a bar/street/concert/dance I know absolutely nothing about her except her looks; not even where she lives - could be 1000 miles away on holiday. On-line, in addition to that, you can learn, or ask about, before you spend or waste an evening with her : interests, lifestyle, location, career, education level, status, politics, religion etc. I don't mean you give them a questionaire, but in the dating organisation I was with you exchanged a few messages before meeting and these things started to emerge. I'm not saying they they are necessarily show-stoppers (I don't mind education level) but they all build a picture. Of course, they can lie, but if a girl in her pre-meeting messages that she is a vegetarian, then she probably is. If she said she has just returned from a communist rally, she is probably a communist. If she says she spends every weekend horse riding, she is probably into horses. You can judge their educational level just by their writing style (how would they fake it up?). And so on.
I believe that many of those those who deprecate on-line dating make the assumption that you would otherwise meet partners who somehow you already know something about, which is no good if you don't. My parents met in a sports club circle (of about 40 young people with about a 50:50 sex ratio it seems) where everyone came to know something about all the others before the romance started, and most of them ended up marrying each other. My mother was horrified when I joined a dating organisation as her attitude was like "You should only meet people you have already met". None of that helps if you do not know anyone to start with, and joining a club like my parents' is an incredibly innefficient way to start (I have been in clubs where they are almost all old fogies). I never "met" or was introduced to any girl outside dating organisations.
The other misconception the critics have is assuming that you must marry (or whatever) the person "the computer picks for you". This seems to stem from some earlier systems (computer but pre-internet - "Dateline" in the UK back then) which boasted computer matching and basically you paid per "match" they gave you. In fact however you meet, on or off-line, once you meet you take the situation from there and make up your own minds whether it is going to work between you. When I met girls through the dating organisation, we tended to talk about the organisation for a few minutes and then moved on to other topics, the matter of how we came to talking to each other became irrelevant from then on.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday December 02 2017, @11:30PM
I never "met" or was introduced to any girl outside dating organisations.
There's been a small handful of times I've met a girl at a party, but it's just not a great way to meet someone and get to know them. You're not going to meet lots of eligible people there, many of them may already be in a relationship (most parties aren't exclusive to singles), and it takes time to talk to them and find out any show-stoppers. With online dating, you can do a search which filters out obvious deal-breakers like religion, distance, having kids, etc.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 01 2017, @05:38PM (9 children)
Including women who *HIT ON YOU*, then start hitting on/asking about other guys when you finally meet. Or fuck you, claim they enjoyed it, then ghost you the next week. And when you ask for confirmation they don't want to date/fuck you get nothing, and if you *DROP OFF* borrowed/shared items, get in a tiff that you showed up at their house to leave the items on their porch. Or girls who persistently get you into situations that offend their parents because they are exhibitionists who get off on the 'risk', but make you the fall guy for the situations. Or tweens who send you a portfolio of nudes then AFTER that, decide they're not interested in you because you ask them to *HOLD TO THEIR COMMITMENTS* so your carefully scheduled opening to spend time(at their somewhat naggy behest) with them doesn't go to waste.
Yeah, online is SOOO much better than IRL for dealing with fucking crazy chicks. Seriously, I fully understand why some men end up misogynists now, why others choose prostitutes over fucking around with relationships, and why the group that is left is either socially damaged goods women don't like, perpetual lying players out to get their dicks wet, or naive cucks who think they will (or won't!) get fucked (metaphorically or literally).
As to any clearheaded, responsible, mature, and reliable women out there: You are the piece of hay and your peers are a stack of dirty needles men need to shove their hand into in the hopes of finding you, so hopefully this analogy gives you an idea of why so many guys seem like prick(s|eds).
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday December 01 2017, @05:54PM (8 children)
Which one is the +1 grumpy/hurt/cynical/downer/correct mod again?
This place needs it often enough to be worth coding.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Friday December 01 2017, @06:08PM (7 children)
If there was a +1 cynical mod added it would be the most commonly used mod on day 1.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday December 01 2017, @07:59PM (6 children)
Here's the perfect way to implement this:
+1 Cynical
+1 Optimistic
-1 Gloomy
-1 Naïve
I believe these moderations would be extremely popular.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday December 01 2017, @08:04PM (5 children)
Given the width of my browser window, I'm still a proponent of displaying all the mods given, rather than just the arbitrarily chosen one (user option?).
Otherwise, the agree/disagree are usually inconsequential.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday December 01 2017, @08:19PM (4 children)
Are you talking about seeing "Score: +1 Funny, +2 Informative, +1 Insightful, -1 Overrated, -1 Flamebait" instead of "Score 4, Informative"?
If so, I can tell you that it is not arbitrary. Through trial and error, I determined that the moderation seen is either the one with the most uses (so +2 Informative would beat ±1 of Funny, Insightful, Flamebait, etc.), or in the case of a tie, the last used moderation. Except that Overrated and Underrated do not count for these rules (a comment can never appear as "Score 5, Underrated" for example).
So a comment modded (in chronological order): +1 Insightful, +1 Underrated, +1 Underrated, -1 Flamebait, -1 Flamebait, +1 Underrated, +1 Insightful, ±0 Disagree should appear as these (counting logged-in and karma bonuses):
(Score 3, Insightful)
(Score 4, Insightful)
(Score 5, Insightful)
(Score 4, Insightful)
(Score 3, Flamebait)
(Score 4, Flamebait)
(Score 5, Insightful)
(Score 5, Insightful)
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday December 01 2017, @10:11PM (3 children)
> Are you talking about seeing "Score: +1 Funny, +2 Informative, +1 Insightful, -1 Overrated, -1 Flamebait" instead of "Score 4, Informative"?
Pretty much.
> So a comment modded (in chronological order): +1 Insightful, +1 Underrated, +1 Underrated, -1 Flamebait, -1 Flamebait, +1 Underrated, +1 Insightful, ±0 Disagree, ±0 Disagree
That would be "Score 5: +3 Insightful +3 Underrated -2 Flamebait , 2 Disagree", which tells you more about the readers' feedback than 5 Insightful. (it might require a smaller font)
I have heard rumors that this society could use more nuances in discourse than Black or White and Us vs Them.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday December 01 2017, @10:22PM (1 child)
Here, I filed a feature request for you: https://github.com/SoylentNews/rehash/issues/412 [github.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday December 01 2017, @10:52PM
Dang, there's no "+10 thank you" mod.
I guess, strictly speaking, that was informative, which sounds a bit cold.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Saturday December 02 2017, @06:12PM
I know it's not exactly what you're asking for, but in case you're unaware: you can click on the comment ID (#604070 in the case of the comment I'm replying to) to be linked to the page for that comment, which shows all of the mods it has received. Personally, I like the shorthand for normal browsing (but I also often use mobile devices).
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Friday December 01 2017, @05:20PM
aiwarrier said :-
The problem arises when guys don't recognise the rejection and instead of simply moving on they persist. Jocks generally refuse to recognise that any girl could possibly reject them, of if they do recognise it they nevertheless persist because they take it as a challenge and/or want to repair their wounded pride.
FTFA :-
That sounds to me like it was a two-way thing anyway, not harrassment. It was said to be "inappropriate" but it is not said how. Maybe they were parading it in front of other workers in work time.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday December 01 2017, @06:42PM
Good lord can we stop with this harassment thing?
Yes, they should stop harassing people. Then we would't have to hear about it all the time.