Hacker News Reader

Comment by SeoxyS | Hacker News Reader

I think it's impressive, and somewhat refreshing to see someone so plainly admit "Sorry, I fucked up, I was wrong. I know better now." I was expecting more bullshitty-tasting PR-written damage control.

View on HN

In fairness, this technique is very normal, just perhaps not in recent years. http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/Shiga-SFBay.htm

I think that's the point. Apologizing sincerely seems to be a forgotten art.

but he didn't. he said he answered the question wrong, not that the answer was wrong. You could argue about semantics, but it's clear at a very superficial level to everyone that he answered the question wrong - wrong forum, wrong wording - but that says nothing about how correct the answer is.

Like for a personal parallel, it would probably be wrong to announce to a friend that you thought they were ugly, no matter how correct you were.

The sincere apology would have been to announce that his answer was incorrect - otherwise he is just trying to pacify the mob, if that makes sense. Perhaps I'm being a little pedantic, but this email has clearly been proofread by a number of people, and the key statement is definitely not as clear-cut as this HN thread seems to be deciding (it's a very clear-cut non-statement).

Edit: Criticism definitely fair, I jumped to conclusions.

In the UK, people would typically say "I answered the question wrong" and consider it synonymous with "The answer I gave was wrong". Many Indians (that I know personally at least) seem to copy UK speech patterns more than US ones.

I think you are reading more into this than is really there.

Not to be annoying, but I wish you wouldn't say 'copy'. It makes it sound like an affectation. India only recently gained independence and Indian English is strongly influenced by the way it was spoken in the UK at the time.

I'm sure you didn't mean anything by your choice of words but perhaps using "influenced by" or "derives from" would be better.

>And when it comes to career advice on getting a raise when you think it’s deserved, Maria’s advice was the right advice. If you think you deserve a raise, you should just ask.

Sounds like an unambiguous repudiation of his previous answer to me.

EDIT: Just noticed geetee made the same comment. Didn't mean to steal it.

I think you're being unfair. If he said only that, then maybe you could claim that he was hiding that he truly believes women shouldn't ask for raises. However, he clarified and said "Maria's advice was the right advice. If you think you deserve a raise, you should just ask."

The juxtaposition of this 'right advice' with the previous 'wrong answer' should indicate to you his current position on the matter. Speech is a lossy serialization of thought. It depends on our reconstructing context.

He says he gave the "wrong" answer to the question, not that the answer he gave was wrong. It was very revealing about what he thinks about paying his employees, especially about not trusting those that ask for raises.

Without a doubt I wholeheartedly support programs at Microsoft and in the industry that bring more women into technology and close the pay gap. I believe men and women should get equal pay for equal work. And when it comes to career advice on getting a raise when you think it’s deserved, Maria’s advice was the right advice. If you think you deserve a raise, you should just ask.

What more do you want?

Contrast that with what he actually said at the event:

That might be one of the additional superpowers that women who don't ask for a raise have. It's good karma, it'll come back, because somebody's going to know "That's the kind of person that I want to trust. That's the kind of person that I want to really give more responsibility to."

You were nitpicking what he said in his email. You took one sentence to satisfy your need for pedantry and completely ignored what he said after (which disproves your take on the matter.) What does his statement at the event have to do with that?

Well, that last bit is not at all what he intended to say and that people may get your interpretation out of it is exactly why it is a wrong answer: it's an answer likely to be wrongly understood.

You have to wonder why he mentions 'karma' in the first place. And the best explanation for mentioning it is that he truly believes that those who give trust will receive trust.

Note that this does not imply the converse: it doesn't mean people who do not give trust are not to be trusted. It's just his personal belief that it's good to trust 'the (people in the) system' and the problem is that his personal belief does entirely align with the message he wants to get across, at least not in the eyes of people who do not believe in karma.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com