Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Maxxtraxx

  1. 16 minutes ago, Cereal5 said:

    Get whatever one has whichever features you prefer, or whichever is cheaper. You won't see a difference unless you're an LN2 overclocker. You probably wouldn't see a real difference over something with 8 phase power. It's much more dependent on the silicon in your CPU.



    The current crop of middle and high range gigabyte boards have the best VRM of any Z390 board in their classes.  The Master has better VRM cooling... but that doesn't mean the elite has poor cooling, the master just has the best in category.


    Buildzoid has some great rambling about the new Aorus boards if you wish to know more.


    Buildzoid Aorus Master Overview: Here


    Buildzoid Aorus Lineup overview: Here


    I personally chose the Z390 Aorus Master board, but would have been just as happy with the other mid range Aorus boards after watching Buildzoid.

  2. 8 hours ago, coolkingler1 said:

    I assume the forum reactions. I would agree too. Though not exactly The Donald, diluted version of it more like. 

    I am not seeing where the forum reactions are Donaldesque, unless you mean that people standing up to a bais that has affected their lives and has lead to ridicule and attack against them... which is called character assassination.


    The proper way to address disagreements with another person's viewpoint or belief is to discuss why you disagree with that viewpoint and provide evidence as to why.


    When, you attack the individual instead of the idea and label them a term ending in "ist" or "fobe" you claim you don't have to provide proof or evidence that their idea is wrong or unjustified somehow... Instead you just assassinate their character, slander, degrade and threaten. This is what these individuals are speaking against, the personal attacks on them because of their viewpoint... Attacks that oftwn come in the form of mob justice and with zero discussion and discord.


    So, if you want to discuss some ideas that you disagree with please quote them and discuss them. But please don't accuse those posts of being equivalent to a person or figure that you do not like because of a vaguely similar viewpoint... It's character degradation/assassination.

  3. The online communities at Facebook, Twitter, Google, ect. Have been heavily focused upon and in the spotlight recently. Much of the criticism has had been rightly placed on the companies due to the ways they have handled(or mishandled)the occurances.


    I am personally entirely in favor of our community and the internet as a whole being held as closely to complete freedom of speech as possible. Regulation of allowable content and ideas, by nature, will always place one bias against another... These biases are real and our own blindness to them is also very real.


    Brian Amerige at Facebook has posted an internal memo in an attempt to draw attention to a topic that he and many others have been afraid to express for fear of personal consequences from coworkers and from the company itself.


    His short 1 and a bit page memo is blunt and upfront about the concerns that he and some of his fellow employees have regarding the situation inside the company from an outsider employee's point of view.


    I believe it's a great topic for discussion and agree almost entirely with the ground rules he lays out for the content of the discussion that is allowable and what is not 


    The memo can be read here:




    Commentary can be read from other sources linked below.


    Daily Wire: Here


    NYT: Here

  4. Hello all,


    Some interesting news I just came across, perused quickly and figured I would share after all the diverse opinions I saw on the net neutrality issue.


    It is apparently a proposal being circulated by certain senators.


    The link to an article written by the Libertarian website Reason.com briefly discussing some of the proposals can be found HERE


    The full PDF of the proposal is HERE:



    I have not had the time or desire to read the full PDF that was leaked... It's long and full of legal speak.


    Some of the headline proposals:


    For social media platforms:


    "Mandatory location verification"

    "Mandatory identity verification"

    "Bot labeling"




    "Other proposals include more disclosure requirements for online political speech, more spending to counter supposed cybersecurity threats, more funding for the Federal Trade Commission, a requirement that companies' algorithms can be audited by the feds (and this data shared with universities and others), and a requirement of "interoperability between dominant platforms."

    The paper also suggests making it a rule that tech platforms above a certain size must turn over internal data and processes to "independent public interest researchers" so they can identify potential "public health/addiction effects, anticompetitive behavior, radicalization," scams, "user propagated misinformation," and harassment—data that could be used to "inform actions by regulators or Congress.""


    All in all, the synopsis of the content of this article (and supposedly the actual proposal) is of a highly concerning nature to me.


    This proposal seeks to add a government approved level of speech and remove free speech from an area... that while controlled by private companies, has also been an area where thought diversity and freedom were assumed to have been core values. This very issue has come under heavy attack in the last two years under the guise of controlling "hate speech" but has really been about censoring any speech that these large tech companies disagree with. Most of these companies have shown themselves to be very biased in their voluntary censorship of free speech towards one group of individuals but have not been consistent in applying that same standard to opposing groups of individuals. This problem has been seen over and over again, when one group censors all speech that they disagree with by forcibly silencing others we start down a road to a loss of freedom, a road that we are already starting down and are accelerating.


    I find myself on the side/in the camp of the individuals that are being censored because of their beliefs, opinions, values and this entire topic is very important to me and concerning to me.


    I find myself of the opinion that this very Forum and it's moderators are and have shown bias(though to a lesser degree than many of these social media sites) against those who are of the party, of the mindset, opinion an values that hold dear. It is one of the very reasons that I have found myself coming to this forum less and as a result also being less inclined to watch Linus's youtube channels, while Linus himself and those on his show have only allowed their opinions slip out on a few occasions that I have been privy to (though i do not watch the WAN show). I have found enjoyment from participating in this forum but it has grown more difficult as I have seen that there are those who oppose and differ from my viewpoint, which is fine and healthy, but similar to the mindset of our PC and safe zone culture, if someone has a viewpoint that differs from the approved and popular path it has started to become the norm to get angry/yell, condemn differing viewpoints with false accusations or to simply shut down and stop any speech that deviates from what is considered PC.


    These are the reasons why this is important across the internet as a whole, within this forum and to me personally.  Many in these and approved by these Social media sites like call me and people like me fascist, but fascists are the ones who shut down differing opinions and free speech, which means that in many cases those yelling fascist at others are the ones approving of and calling for what fascism does and results in.



  5. 5 hours ago, Jurrunio said:

    66C is perfectly fine by me... I would even turn down the fan speed to lower the noise. I mean, many air cooled cards run hotter than that.

    100% agreed, 66C is fine.


    I'm more interested in, the challenge of doing something like a bigger rad with a universal GPU mount for my second hand proclivity, the enjoyment from a desired result being achieved in an unconventional way and at a price that makes it even more worthwhile, and then sharing my unconventional choices to reach a goal and hopefully help someone else to do the same if it fits their budget, goals and desire and then also to give some a good laugh... That's primarily why i'm sharing.

  6. Assassin's Creed Origins... great game, loads of fun, very pretty with all the makeup on(maxed out graphics settings) and the first AC game that I have played. But I've noticed it's not afraid to work my PC pretty hard(6700K @ 4.6Ghz with H100v2, 1080Ti founders with 120mm EVGA AIO installed, 1440p @ 75hz) and will run my 1080Ti at 90%-100% load at all times. My poor little 120mm AIO is working overtime to keep 250watts(likely more with the overclock) as cool as possible... it pushes some incredible heat out of that radiator, at full saturation the card tends to run at ~ 66C and of course it will clock down from 2000 Mhz into the 1960's as it warms(first world problems here).


    I've been toying with the idea of getting an EK MLC Phoenix 240mm for just the GPU (see here). But... I'm a bit of second hand(aka used) craigslist shopper who enjoys buying and swapping cards on a regular basis and I have used my current EVGA Hybrid AIO on several different cards, all founders/reference models... I guess they tend to be cheapest and first available in the used market so they drop into my lap first... come to think of it, I haven't bought a new GPU since my GTX970 and I've likely had 10 - 12 cards pass through my hands since then. But... the price, that's a lot of money to spend on a setup that doesn't have the ability to be used on multiple cards... all just to get that upgrade to a 240mm radiator.


    So, myself being willing to do things that seem to be logical and frugal but also fun and idiotic at once... I decided to try my hand at transforming my 120mm AIO into a 240mm AIO.


    The first idea that entered my mind and that I toyed with for a week or so involved purchasing a 240mm rad, getting g1/4 to 1/4 barbs, cutting the tubes and reattaching them to the 240 rad while using some extra tube and a barbed 1/4 tee fitting to bleed the system before resealing it. I wasn't a big fan of it... it would have worked(I think) but I do enjoy achieving a setup that doesn't look barbarously hacked together when possible.


    Then I came across these three pieces:

    1: HardwareNexus's teardown of an EVGA Hybrid AIO HERE

    2: EVGA forum post showing a user who swapped the EVGA pump for a Corsair pump due to noise HERE 

    3: Thermaltake Water 3.0 240mm AIO HERE


    These gave me the idea for how to proceed and solve some of the problems.


    A normal AIO cooler will not work with a founders/reference card without stripping the card to the bare pcb due to the cast aluminum plate that covers the card and provides cooling for the memory and power delivery as the plate sits at a higher Z height than the GPU silicon.

    Also a normal AIO cooler does not have the proper predrilled mounting holes for the retention bracket

    Also only certain gen Asetek pumps have a pump body that has exterior X and Y axis dimensions that do not cover the mounting holes, many new Asetek pumps have a square body that would cover the mounting holes.


    This picture of GTX1080 below provided as an example of the cooling plate height and hole spacing problems.



    To overcome this problem means sticking with an AIO cooler with a 240mm rad and the same generation (3rd gen) Asetek pump as the EVGA pump.

    Thats where the Thermaltake Water 3.0 240mm AIO comes in, unlike some of the new Corsair and EVGA AIO's like the H115i Pro and CLC 240, the Water 3.0 is an old, Gen 3 pump that matches perfectly with the EVGA Hybrid pump.

    As can be seen in the pictures below, the EVGA on the Left and the Water 3.0 on the Right have the same pump body made by Asetek but have different cold plates (and an extra mounting bracket for the EVGA)

    The primary things we're after are:

    1: the raised center of the EVGA coldplate that allows it to drop down into silicon hole provided in the VRM/Mem chip cooling plate on the reference card.

    2: the square mounting bracket that is held in by the pump body screws to allow for the factory cooler retention springy screws to be used to install the pump.



    The pump screws come out easily with a properly sized philips screwdriver and a high level of downward pressure.

    First, I found that by squeezing the back of the pump and coldplate together in my hand as I removed the pump body screws I was able to swap the pump mounting bracket from the EVGA to the Water 3.0 without any coolant loss(FYI be sure to use the screws from the EVGA pump when installing the pump mounting bracket to the new pump as they are longer to compensate for the change in depth required to retain the pump bracket)


    Second I removed the screws for the cold plate on the EVGA pump and removed the coldplate. (examples below, not from me, found online)teardown1.jpg.af1ca28582f4396f78c1aa6f7e7af7dc.jpgteardown2.jpg.7d832018702d0b8e47295bd8dd745813.jpgasetekgen3plate.jpg.d89c0a748cc00c4da8a794be81bf08d9.jpg

    The cold plate for the Gen 3 pumps is round and has 3 indentations to key the plate properly to the pump body, so you would have to try really hard to do it wrong,

    I found that by simply keeping the new pump level and at the highest point in the loop the coldplate from the EVGA pump was able to be swapped onto the Water 3.0 pump with only a few drops of total coolant loss, the underside of the plate and the sealing gasket, were all visibly identical from one pump to the other.


    Finally, it was all put back in the PC(after plugging the pump in for a leak check outside of the PC chassis).


    I can say that...

     - It was a lot easier than I was expecting

     - The new pump is quieter... for some reason than the EVGA pump

     - The fans that came with the Water 3.0 are pretty garbage, aka Loud and do not appear to be SP optimized(I can feel a large amount of air blowback around the circumferential edge of the fan blades) like my Fractal HP-12s or the Noctua F-F12's (I have some Noctua NF-F12's on the way now to replace them)

    - It is currently running 10C cooler(55-56C at full saturation and load) with the new AIO in place, the fans however are turned down to a maximum of 50% because I can't stand the noise above that, the old AIO would ramp the fan up to 60%-70% when at full load, I'm hoping the Noctua's will remove another 1-2C(might be a little hopeful there) and do so more quietly.

     - I had fun doing the entire process, I'm pretty excited that it worked.


    Expected responses to my escapade:

    1: You're dummy for opening an AIO... risking destroying it and the $80 that brought it here along with the old(previously working) AIO

    2: Neat... but kinda pointless for a 10C drop

    3: Glad you had fun... ya hack


  7. 1 hour ago, kirashi said:

    really hope this gets brought up since Aleksandr should be dealt with prior to anyone else being affected at Facebook. I'm not disputing the fact that we need to reach Europe's level of consumer protection laws: this is a definitive goal if North Americans are to ever have the same quality of life that many Countries in the EU offer. However, in this instance, Aleksandr knowingly violated Facebook's own ToS and app developer policies by wording his Quiz App's ToS to be in direct violation of Facebook's own ToS. Again, I do agree with the knowledge-lacking senate and Mark himself that Facebook has a responsibility to police their platform within reason, but Aleksandr is the first person that needs dealing with before the senate's Facebook employee witch hunt begins since he willfully violated Facebook's own ToS through the app he developed.

    I can agree with that being brought up(though i'm not entirely sure about the EU's consumer protection laws... and I seldom tend to be in favor of many of the things i see coming out of the EU(but that is a personal world view and mindset difference on my part more than anything else))


    I can both agree with and disagree with "policing their platform within reason"



    Agree with policing for: Content like "backpage" or other flagrant abuses used to exploit people are a definite  NO NO


    Disagree with policing for: Content like "Diamond and Silk" where another persons beliefs and opinions are censored if they may be even mildly upsetting to anyone and not in line with the company's leanings(liberal/progressive in Facebooks case)


    Very Secondary note: example of EU things that disturb me: French court ruling that a pro-life commercial depicting Happy people with down syndrome being censored because it may disturb women who have had aborted down syndrome babies... so it must therefore be censored, Short and simple: person A's life cannot be included or celebrated because their existence may disturb person B who made a personal choice entirely separate from person A.


    1 hour ago, 2FA said:

    Not sure how relevant it may be but one of the founders of CA who left the company a few years ago has described the company very much as the ends justifies the means type of org.

    I see your point exactly.


    AND i completely do not believe the individual and the company when they say they disavow that article he wrote, he wrote it as a point of fact for the companies feelings.

  8. 19 minutes ago, 2FA said:

    The reason why Cambridge Analytica is different than the Obama campaign is because CA illicitly gained the user data. They bought the data off of Aleksandr Kogan who was supposedly collecting user data using Facebook's tools (Facebook approved of this) for academic purposes and wasn't authorized to sell that data or use it for other purposes.

    Then the fault on that front is primarily with Kogan and with Facebook who to my understanding was extremely lax in their data control and usage enforcement for many years and also in in their favoritism in the entities they gave privelidged access to.


    If they don't enforce the rules and bend them at their own particular whim then problems like this will occur and the fault is primarily their own.




    I should also specify that I don't absolve Cambridge of wrongdoing, but in their case any wrongdoing is dependent entirely upon the knowledge that they had about the data when it was purchased, if they knew that Kogan selling the data was outside of his allowances in the contractual use of the data... then they would be in the wrong as well. However, if Cambridge was only aware that they were purchasing data... but were unaware of or not told of any restrictions on that data through no fault of their own, then they would be absolved.


    However, i've not read fully into this particular issue but IMO my suspicion would be that they may have had some knowledge of the data's source but did not expect facebook to attempt enforcement of their rules. (this previous sentence is entirely speculation with no particular source of info)

  9. 2 hours ago, PocketNerd said:

    Firstly, your link doesn't show how the RNC got their data, so the point being made could be moot.

    Second, all you have (potentially) proven is that both parties are shitty, which isn't really anything new. I'm Canadian, so my opinion doesn't truly matter in this context, and my point still stands that how you obtain the data matters.

    I literally posited that question purely to draw out people such as yourself, and not as a means of trying to prop up the Dems as being the good guys. Because those are the kinds of questions EVERYONE should be asking.

    Wow, angry are we?


    All the sources I've read have shown that the Trump campaign use of Cambridge data was extremely limited and have never any indication from any source anywhere that the RNC ever used data from Cambridge. (BTW the Trump campaign and the RNC are separate entities)


    If you have any evidence to the contrary please present it.


    The RNC and the Dems have been gathering voter data far longer than the infantile company known as Cambridge has been.


    Why are do you seem to be most concerned with the political party usage of Facebook data?


    Why is ALL of this not entirely Facebook's fault?


    Why has anyone who has ever used windows 10, Google, Android, Gmail, Yahoo, apple IOS or any other data gathering service that is fronted by a product or service that provides us personally benefit in exchange for them being allowed to gather data to help target us with ads for products and services that we might purchase ever expected any semblance of privacy from or expected personal ownership of the data that they've collected on us?


    If how you gather the data matters then you need to look at Facebook and others who have made a business out of knowing you and your habits in order to make money off of that and decide if you're ok with what they do... not with the many other entities (including political parties)who have used what these tech companies have made... And if you're not, then stop using their products.


    15 hours ago, VegetableStu said:

    what are your thoughts on obama's team using an in-team app to influence an election but only his own? because that's the only difference I can find vs cambrilitica o_o

    I think that both parties will use the best resources they can find to get their respective messages out to those they believe they can impact the most.


    I personally have no problem with companies collecting data on me to help them target me with ads for products and services that are more relevant and interesting to me.


    For example, I would rather see ads for PC and automotive parts and products that I might like than to see random ads for feminine hygiene products and geriatric diet supplements.


    I don't see a moral or ethical problem with what I described above.


    As an example of what I wouldn't approve of:


    I would have an issue with that data being used by a police state(like China) to hunt down people that are Christian Church communities or other minorities that are outside of the state's enforced belief or thought system.


    I'm also not ok with the hipocracy and double standard that seems to be in effect within the media and left wing technomonopolies that decide that it's ok for their political party of preference to use the data but not any other parties, also the idea of Facebook giving more privileged information to one party over another would be a ethical violation in my eyes.


    So, I'm unsure if I answered your question fully... I think it's ok so long as the playing field is level and no preferential treatment is given and the usage is for ads and promotions and not to enforce thought or silence voices.

  10. 13 hours ago, LAwLz said:

    Obama uses data harvested through Facebook for his campaign = Media thinks it is super clever and applaud him for it.

    Trump uses data harvested through Facebook for his campaign = Media thinks it is a scandal and new legislation gets pushed.



    I am not a Trump support (nor a Hillary supporter), but I find that observation kind of sad.

    On the bright side, hopefully this will lead to something good. Maybe some good legislation, or at the very least it has made people aware of the dangers of data harvesting.


    13 hours ago, PocketNerd said:

    The question becomes, how was the Data Harvested? As far as the Trump Campaign is concerned, they got the Data from a Foreign Company who obtained that data Fraudulently.

    Data Harvesting itself isn't necessarily bad, but who obtained that data and how makes all the difference.

    I'll just leave these here...



    "in fact, the Obama campaign used Facebook to gain a massive political advantage by doing exactly what Cambridge Analytica did and the Obama campaign's media director even bragged about it and confirmed Facebook was aware of it."

    "This resulted in the Obama campaign accessing roughly 189 million friend profiles that didn't authorize the app and targeted them with political propaganda."


    Link #2



    "Facebook on Wednesday said that the data of up to 87 million users may have been improperly shared" (by Cambridge analytical)


    Link #3



    "The crucial decision(to not use Cambridge's data) was made in late September or early October when Mr. Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner and Brad Parscale, Mr. Trump's digital guru on the 2016 campaign, decided to utilize just the RNC data for the general election and used nothing from that point from Cambridge Analytica or any other data vendor."

  11. 10 hours ago, Maticks said:

    If you hand over your data can you still call it a data breach?

    My name is Commander Shepherd and this is my favorite comment on the Citadel.

    27 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

    I wish I could like this comment twice.

    If you like a quote that likes the like of the comment that you like does that mean you're liking it twice?

  12. 4 hours ago, Misanthrope said:


    Well apparently not to ravenshrike which is the person I was quoting and henceforth responding to. He said multiple reports were "factually wrong" when that wasn't the case: Damore really did write lots of misogynistic, right wing talking points on his memo. Someone disagreeing with what Damore say or interpreting it as an attack on women and their abilities is not reporting something that's 'Factually wrong' at all.


    The part that some people have trouble accepting is one that you casually mention as if it didn't needed to even be discussed further: "because of his race his gender and his personal beliefs."


    1) It wasn't "because of his race and gender" at all. You have 0 evidence to support said claim and the original post on this thread at best has vague conjecture about a possible, distant correlation between his race and his dismissal that still needs to be proven in court both in terms of veracity and context which is Google's right to defend said accusation.


    Listed in the lawsuit in reference to another google employee named Gudeman.



    2) His believes ceased to be "personal" the minute he himself widely distributed the memo for all employees to see. I might have personal believes outside of my workplace and I shouldn't be fired because of them. If I publicly and widely distribute said ideas to all of the company, then I am basically no longer talking about my personal believes as I am putting them forth for all of my co-workers and the company itself to evaluate.


    At the very least companies frown upon using company property and time to discuss political believes and even if that wasn't the case (Might or might not be again, we haven't heard Google's side and probably won't if/until the court case) we can't say if others circulating similar memos suffered any kind of reprimands by Google.

    The place where Damore and others listed in the lawsuit were Discussion boards put in place by google for the very purpose of employees discussing ways to improve the company. That was the purpose and goal of Damores memo, he wanted to increase diversity in the workplace by adding his thoughts on the reasons for differences between men and women. His views expressed were not political, they were his constructive thoughts out of a desire to help the company.


    Sorry but having rights as a worker doesn't means you have the right to use your work as a political platform: it just means you shouldn't be persecuted for believes you express outside of company time and company platforms but once you bring it indoors, you're no longer talking "personal believes" you're talking a fucking political agenda you're pushing on everybody which is what Damore did.

    I'm still not seeing what Damore did as political, can you give me an example of him in his memo specifically promoting a political party/platform?





  13. 3 hours ago, Sauron said:

    You can't write an essay about your employer being a discriminatory company without proof and making incorrect scientific claims, put it online for everyone to see, and then expect them to just ignore it. If you tell your boss he's a jackass you'll get fired and rightfully so, even if it is your opinion. He can't put you in jail for it, but he can refuse to have you as part of his work force. I'm pretty sure the exact same would have happened if the opposite were the case (i.e. someone who isn't a white man complaining about discrimination and that *insert group* is being favoured despite their lower competence).


    You can say and write whatever you want, but don't mistake freedom of speech for freedom from consequences. What you think in your private life is your own business but the instant you write about your employer they can take action.


    Then I believe that you are not fully understanding the memo that he originally wrote and where exactly the memo was posted. I will attempt to give some context that I am hoping will clarify some things as I understand them to be.


    1: The location that the memo was posted...


    is an internal bulletin board of sorts that the company actively promotes to it's employees as a place for them to bring up topics for discussion with an emphasis on improving the workplace and making the company a better place to work. This is thusly an open invitation for EVERYONE in the company to bring up topics, express thoughts and opinions and discuss them for the betterment of the company.


    2: The memo itself

    Damores memo was his personal thoughts and opinions that were presented very respectfully and were an effort to put forth ideas to IMPROVE diversity within the company by looking at possibly reasons why men and women behave the way they do and how he thought Google could be made a better and more diverse place to work. His memo was NOT inflamatory, did not berate, call anyone a jackass or claim that google was discriminatory.


    So, his memo was a respectful offering of his opinions on a subject that google was actively asking employees to discuss and it was in an internal forum that was for all employees with the purpose of that forum being a place to discuss these things that google was actively asking employees to discuss in an effort to improve the company.


    The lawsuit then alleges:

    As a direct result of him doing what the company was asking employees for, BECAUSE his opinions/views were conservative, he was a cisgender white male, he was singled out for hateful, derogatory and abusive treatment that was given the approval of by google itself.

  14. 4 minutes ago, Sauron said:

    Not really... defending google's official point of view doesn't automatically mean attacking or discriminating. If it is against the law (I doubt it is) then the court will rule accordingly.

    I would encourage you to read the article and pertinent sections of the lawsuit which aren't that hard to find.


    And I think after reading the examples provided and evidence provided in the ways in which he was discriminated against you will find that it would be highly unacceptable within a company to act as such and for the company to promote as such.

  15. 4 minutes ago, Sauron said:

    Not really... defending google's official point of view doesn't automatically mean attacking or discriminating. If it is against the law (I doubt it is) then the court will rule accordingly.

    It's not defending Googles own Viewpoint that's the problem. 


    It's that damore is alleging that he was discriminated against and fired because of his viewpoints after being attacked and berated by the Google employees and that Google actively supported those employees in attacking him.

  16. 4 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

    "Factually wrong" Umm no, even the guy who lead the studies (link 2) he based the memo off said he grossly misrepresented the study. Damore it's still basically a Layman pretending he understands scientific studies but only has very superficial understanding that's enough to push his political agenda.


    Honestly this is exactly what a lot of what I call "Pop Sociologists"* do as well but for the other side and arriving to unreasonable, unrealistic and baseless conclusion that studies just do not suggest whatsoever.


      Reveal hidden contents

    *Pop Sociologist: Not an actual dedicated academic with experience and recognition in the field, just a sociology student, drop-out or otherwise someone with very superficial approach to the area than then talks authoritatively on the subject and often writes up scripts and such for Buzzfeed and other such sensationalist outlets that write on "Feminism" and "Intersectionality" and such


    Whether damores conclusions and findings in his memo were correct or incorrect is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. In his memo he provided his own thoughts and opinions based off some data that he found for ways to improve diversity within the company.


    As a result of him posting his memo in an open discussion forum he was fired by the company for expressing his thoughts and beliefs after being harassed and berated in a way that was seemingly approved of by Google because of his race his gender and his personal beliefs.


    That is the issue at hand is whether or not Google actively discriminates against those minorities within the company who do not conform to  the company's own belief system.



  17. 1 minute ago, asus killer said:

    setting aside things like violence, isn't there free speech in the USA?

    Yes, there is, but right now it is growing more and more fashionable to silence voices that you disagree with via threats, voilence, shouting, censorship, ect. 

    A certain popular extremist group in the US claims that an individual expressing a view that the group deems wrong should be silenced with physical violence because that group believes expressing that view is the same thing as physical violence.

  18. 2 hours ago, Sauron said:

    If you read the content of the e- mail, what was dubbed as "[Damore's memo]" actually reads "g/pc-harmful-discuss", which is NOT the memo but rather the discussion thread about it - at least from what I can tell. As for giving out bonuses to employees doing what is effectively PR for the company, I don't see how this is particularly outrageous... I'm sure there are plenty of companies rewarding employees for "spreading the message". Defending Google's official position is obviously beneficial to Google, it's only natural they would reward employees for taking time out of their day to do it.

    The lawsuit proposed that the company is through the bonuses given actively promoting and encouraging  its employees to attack and discriminate what is a minority group within the company BECAUSE of that person's beliefs, political views, gender and skin color.


    That absolutely is promotion of the Google agenda... BUT it is against the law... And horribly discriminatory if that is the case.



  19. 10 minutes ago, FeralWombat said:

    I've personally been the victim of racists against whites in the short time I've spent in a computer-related hardware company with just north of 200 employees in a particular European country.

    Thanks for sharing, especially since as you saw in your former company, many, many, many consider (as we see with Google) racism against whites to be ok or even required. Glad to hear you handled it well and found a new job and country to work in.


    6 minutes ago, Kamina said:

    Google went full Nazi.

    Don't tell them that... The antifascists think they're fighting it... Not part of what they're fighting.

  20. On this topic of James Damore and Google... There is a grand amount of heated opinions, division and anger. I would personally recommend that everyone who would like to comment on the subject at hand or about James Damore to go and READ the WHOLE memo that he authored. IMO it is blatently obvious the memo is:


    Link to Damores memo HERE


    1. well informed

    2. well constructed

    3. intended for good

    4. designed to encourage constructive change for a better work place

    5. does not include any anger/hatred/intent to harm


    I have read several journalists articles regarding the lawsuit that James Damore is a part of and have also skimmed/read through several dozen pages of the actual 161 page lawsuit document.


    Link to Article about lawsuit: HERE

    Link to Lawsuit document: HERE


    The included material is obviously designed to focus upon the grievances brought up in the lawsuit so I would like to remind everyone that the content is not how “googlers” likely interact with one another in every conversation.


    The Enormous list of direct examples included in the lawsuit (they're not hard to find, open the lawsuit, scroll down, and begin reading the emails and messages with the explanations above them, the body of the lawsuit is in plain english and contains very little legal jargon) are direct quotes primarily via screenshots and emails do show various degrees of annoyance, contempt and hatred from google employees directed towards individuals who do not conform to the prescribed google norm.


    Those screenshots/emails/messages are mostly within the confines of the company itself from employee to employee while at work and in many cases are repeatedly reviewed by the governing google body and deigned to be perfectly acceptable... after being reviewed by google.


    The impression that this leaves me with, after reading many pages of the lawsuit, and dozens of peer to peer interactions within google... is that it would be an incredibly hostile workplace to be in, IF you do not agree with/believe in/ascribe to that viewpoint that is actively promoted within Google.


    As a note, I will again encourage everyone here who is interested in this to go and read Damore's memo, the article I provided a link to and to skim through the lawsuit document rather than immedately jump on one hate train or the other.


    Damore sought to express his viewpoints on how to improve the workplace at google and increase diversity, without reading his memo and understanding what is included in the lawsuit it is not possible to accurately discuss this topic.


    I will post below a few examples of the interactions the lawsuit has chosen to use that stood out to me.



    Email that Damore Recieved after his memo was posted from within the company





    Google awarding monetary bonuses to employees for actively speaking against Damore




    Google employees violently reacting and actively speaking against differing views.




    Google as a company maintains a list of people that they will remove from the premises only because of the topics of the books they have written.