I don't know their working hours, we've got staff all over the globe and people work whatever hours they like. I have no expectation for anyone to check work communications outside of their working hours, and it's bonkers to me that people think anyone would have that expectation.
This is a tough one in my opinion because the content of the article is valuable. Yes while reading it i noticed several AI tells. Almost like hearing a record scratch every other paragraph. But I was interested in the content so I kept reading mostly trying to ignore the "noise".
The problem I fear is that with enough AI generated content around, I will become desensitized to that record scratching.
Eventually between over-exposure, those who can't recognize the tells, people copying the writing they see..., we might have to accept what might become a prevalent new style of writing.
> But at the end of the day, the last 10% always takes up 90% of the time and, as always, the difference between good enough and great is the amount of love you put into the work.
I don't find open spaces noisier than cubicles but I am able to easily block out distracting sounds.
I am interrupted, and when I am is generally somebody giving me a useful quick update or an informal greeting from an office buddy when they notice I make welcoming eye contact.
I don't think I ever felt a lack of privacy in the office or expected it in any way? I wonder what kind of privacy I would need that the restroom doesn't cover, I'm sure there are some instances since it's been called out.
My initial reaction reading this (I had t heard the news) was disbelief. How could someone so accomplished and influential be driven to such despair over what seems to be an interpersonal workplace conflict? But the more I think about it, the more I get it. Many of us pour our identities into our work. It becomes more than a job. It’s our purpose, our sense of self. When that’s destabilized or taken away, the fallout can be devastating.
It’s a sad reminder of how vulnerable those who care deeply about their work can be in the face of toxic or unjust environments. Passion and commitment, when met with indifference or hostility, can push anyone to a breaking point.
>over what seems to be an interpersonal workplace conflict
Well, it started with an interpersonal workplace conflict, but ended up with him being forced to retire from his professorship and the entrepreneurial mentoring program he saw as his mission.
We have zero data or evidence to differentiate between "He was pushed out for being right about the ethics complaint" and "he was pushed out because he was wrong about the ethics complaint and did not take that well"
People are jumping to conclusions about who the aggrieved party is because they have a vague connection to the guy who made HowStuffWorks and zero connection to the counterparty. Especially on HN, people would rather believe that "the system is rigged against the brilliant individual" rather than "the individual can often be the problem".
Just as often as upper management is corrupt, a single individual who had NO PRIOR EVIDENCE OF NEGATIVE INTERACTION WITH ANYONE goes absolutely apeshit and attempts to destroy your life.
My mother is a well respected teacher. After about 4 years of working in a new school, one of the other teachers in her department seemingly got "triggered" and went utterly insane. He started fabricating ethics complaints, lying to administrators, and even went so far as to retain a lawyer to sue the school district to have her removed for his completely made up allegations. I read the complaint and I cannot believe a lawyer was willing to be paid to participate. It was pages of insane rantings, like manifesto level, full of misspellings and mistakes and made up entirely of outright lies. The internal investigation was terrifying, because it starts as "He said/She said". Luckily he was crazy enough to fill his allegations with things that were demonstrably disprovable with documentation, but without that, the school absolutely would have just let my mother go instead of fight it.
There was no "cause", no change in department policy that favored my mother over him, no change in pecking order, nothing. He just one day decided to go to war with her. He completely lost his connection to reality. Yet to his students, he continued to teach normally, and nothing seemed off.
We have no facts. We have no evidence. We likely never will. We should reserve judgement.
> Especially on HN, people would rather believe that "the system is rigged against the brilliant individual" rather than "the individual can often be the problem".
Slightly off topic question, but is this Silicon-Randian projection really particularly widespread on HN by and large or only for specific subset of topics?
> It becomes more than a job. It’s our purpose, our sense of self.
Also, consider Brain made a quarter of 1 Billion dollars with the sale of his company. The man didn't have to work, it was his choice to work. I think this contributes even more to the feeling that work is your identity.
Incorrect. The company burned through venture capital for three years, then laid off 50% of workers and was sold in 2002 to vulture capital for ~$1MM with no cash trading hands, only a promissory note [1] to the previous underwater investors. No liquidity to founders.
The 2002 purchaser, Convex Group, scaled the company, took the company public via reverse IPO and sold it five years later to Discovery TV for $250MM. Seven years later, Discovery took a 82% loss, selling the company for $45MM.
Oh interesting! The original article linked in the post really skips over all of those details and makes it seem like he sold the company for 250 million
That reading of the article is so poor it looks like you are trying to spin it intentionally.
The quote without your interpretation does not have any 'enormous ego' vibes.
One clear alternative interpretation is that he was being railroaded via office politics, wasn't equipped to deal with the hit to his image a firing would have, and didn't feel he had the energy to deal with it. No 'enormous ego' required.
Edit: were you involved in this? Your tone and interpretation made it seem so, and your username 'hulitu'... are you Dr. Li?
Guess I need to pay more attention to the humanoid robots around me, and less attention to the fact that hotels offer less housekeeping services, restaurants offer smaller menus and less wait service, plumbers and electricians and other tradespeople have longer lead times…things that tend to happen when demand for work is increasing faster than supply of labor to perform the work.
What I was referring to though is that the Boston Dynamics dogs and Sony spaceman efforts of a decade ago have iterated faster than thought when those predictions were made:
There are indications that the office space conflict was simply the last straw in a long line of interpersonal conflicts he had with other faculty.
For example, he frequently filed ethics complaints against other faculty after minor disagreements... putting their careers at risk over trivial matters.
He may have been well like by the internet but he was not well liked at the school, and the relative silence by faculty and students is pretty telling.
You do understand that the supposed genesis of this (in Mr. Brain's own words) was that he filed an ethics complaint about his boss because she decided to reassign some office space he wasn't using anymore?
In what world do you think that this sort of behavior is remotely acceptable? How would you feel if a co-worker filed a harassment claim against you (which could have serious career consequences for you) for moving their lunch bag in the office refrigerator? That's basically what he did. Being allowed to resign was letting him off easy; at most universities he could have been terminated for cause.
Again: Mr. Brain put a colleague's career in jeopardy over office space. Think about that really hard before you comment again.
> he filed an ethics complaint about his boss because she decided to reassign some office space he wasn't using anymore?
Where do you see that in[0]? In July, they wanted to take the EEP[1] (a program he ran for many years and was passionate about) meeting room for a new faculty member, and then somehow in September they decided to cancel the EEP program once he started complaining. He kept complaining until they ended up firing him (forced resignation) in October.[2]
[2]"“You have three options: 1) Retirement, 2) Discontinuation, or 3) Separation. By
continuing to argue I will take the path of "Discontinuation." "Discontinuation" means we
will not renew your contract. By the end of business on Wednesday I will notify the
university and the I&E team that the end of the semester is your last day. Everything ends
at the end of the semester. To retire and to avoid "Discontinuation" you must send me
your letter of resignation before the end of business Wednesday. If you prolong your
argument I will make the "Separation" effective Wednesday, your email will be cut off, your
office will be inaccessible, you will not finish the courses this semester. Everything ends
Wednesday. To avoid an immediate separation you must not engage in the argument. If
we agree to an amicable separation and you begin to argue later it will trigger an
immediate separation.”"
> After 14 years of outstanding leadership as head of our Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE), Dan Stancil will be stepping down from his position.
I’ve seen other very small bureaucracies who attract people who are great at politicking but are basically essentially evil and use the position for sadism every chance they get.
Wow, this is particularly disconcerting after seeing their No Retaliation clause in that thread. If they aren't willing to deal with ethics complaints in a non-prejudicial manner, then they shouldn't have such a policy.
somehow in September they decided to cancel the EEP program once he started complaining
The EEP program was not cancelled...Brain was simply removed from the program.
It is borderline gaslighting for him to claim that the EEP program was cancelled simply because he was no longer a part of it.
If he had filed an unmerited ethical complaint like this at a UC school like Cal or UCLA, he'd have been terminated for cause without the option of retiring gracefully (this actually happened to a professor at Berkeley while I was there).
Notably: it's been over a week since his death and none of his colleagues are defending him. There's no drama on campus from students despite the supposed injustice. The only people keeping this alive are a handful of people who liked his website. And that's because...there's more to the story than just the one-sided version of it people are parroting on the internet.
"Hey Brain, we want to use this space for <Thing>"
His response is to insist that they do not "need" the space, that "need" is a LIE, and that LIE requires an ethics inquiry!
What the shit? He then does the exact same thing for the email about them not recommending students for his program. "ABET says we aren't good enough, and your program is part of that, so we are going to go in a different direction" and again his reaction is insane!
"“Marshall - my colleague, my confidant, my advisor, my friend - you are over the line." He calls this retaliation!
Imagine going to your boss's boss, and nitpicking every single word of their communication to you, and then when he says "Hey uh you're a little out of your lane here" doubling down!
Now imagine believing it is unethical for your boss's boss to tell you that you are out of line! Imagine keeping your job after being such an unmitigated ass to an entire department and insisting you cannot possibly be wrong like human communication is some sort of logic system!
Sure is funny how much context has been removed from that email too!
Marshall Brain killed himself because he couldn't deal with perfectly valid college/educator administrative interaction! Poor guy must have lost his marbles.
> at most universities he could have been terminated for cause
Is that really true? In my country, there are employment laws to prevent the suffering of detriment post reporting of an incident, grievance, or violation, even if (especially if) the claim is found baseless.
It’s important for these regulations to exist because without them some people fear reporting true problems as they may lose their job, and the wrongdoers do more wrong in such a culture.
Processes should deal with baseless, frivolous, or even vexatious claims far in advance of any consideration of termination of employment.
But I’m clueless on US labor laws, apart from a general suspicion they’re relatively thin.
reply