TBH, I dont think so. I think she is toxic and ample evidence for it. Its normaly for people to side with Google here IMO. Would you want to work with a brilliant jerk?
Umm, I think you need to do more research. Have you seen the toxic behavior she has demonstrated against respected people in the industry? She maybe is smart and pushing for good things, her approach of how she goes about it, especially with people she disagrees with is toxic and she did this to her self.
This is utter nonsense. If you looked outside her twitter feed and at evidence, its clear she was fired because she was toxic. Her threat to leave was her own fault which allows google to move forward. Look at her interactions with respected people like lecun. She has issues with disagreeing with people. She may be qualified, she can have opinions, you can also be the best engineer. If you are an asshole when it comes to disagreeing, then no one will want to work with you. Everyone is replaceable.
She is highly toxic, not just in general, but specifically toward Jeff Dean, who is her manager's manager. Actually, doing that against anyone is not okay.
Reading between the line, she is absolutely fired for her toxicity. This event is just a last straw.
Do you have any links to this discussion? I’m trying to verify the toxic claim and am having a hard time finding it on Twitter right now because of all the noise.
I’d like to see more elaboration than a claim that her behavior is toxic - that is not helpful or conducive for spreading knowledge. I don’t see anything here that matches up to that claim at all, speaking as an outsider.
A word you seem to have no reservations about using against your opponents just from a quick search of your comment history. Why such outrage when it's turned back on your own sacred cows?
Why are you assuming anything about me? You realise I e used the word toxic in my whole comment history only related to this topic right?
I, like many others, dont like the way she deals with people. It is toxic. You call a toxic person, a toxic person. Ample evidence for it. Its not outrage, its just facts.
> Toxic is an inflammatory and unnecessary word to use when no-one is privy to the actual facts.
This response reflects an unwillingness to understand a situational nuance from multiple sides, show empathy to a person in distres and offers no workarounds, support or evidence. I've grown so tired of these factual tug of wars to justify callous.
Firstly, there is ample evidence of her toxic behaviour online. (See the exchange with lecun on twitter, absolutely horrible). So its clear she has issues with how to collaborate and communicate.
She then goes on to threaten the company she works for. Like wtf? Irrespective of what you want to do in response, act like a professional. If you were a CEO/Manager etc and had someone with toxic behavior come in and threaten you if you didnt comply to their demands, wouldnt you go 'ok, see ya'.
I certainly would. Everyone is replaceable. Especially if youre toxic when it comes to dealing with situations you dont agree with
> If you were a CEO/Manager etc and had someone with toxic behavior come in and threaten you if you didnt comply to their demands, wouldnt you go 'ok, see ya'. I certainly would.
Which is fine, but that's firing them for acting up. It doesn't really matter what the demands are.
No, we punish them when they have fraudulent practices and when the product is a scam, like brave is. They modify user's input without their consent, they accept money with no guarantee of delivering to the intended target and talk about privacy as a selling point when they run an ad network . I cannot believe how much people turn in to a cult like fanboy for a product they understand very little about.
We fixed the bug where refcodes were added to binance.us and binance.com URLs. That was a blunder, but not a scam. We made no money from it.
As for "modify user's input without their consent", go type keywords into any browser, Firefox Safari Chrome Edge etc. You'll see search affiliate client code, same as we had by mistake for the two binance domains, and only as suggestions for other partners (all of this, we removed in the springtime, to quell concerns and misrepresentations such as you make here).
We do not "accept money" as intermediary, the browser holds the tips to unverified creators. You seem to be operating on misinformation here. In December 2018 we briefly shipped a system that sent our own funds when directed, back to us, on behalf of unverified creators. That too was a mistake, but we fix bugs and so such tips are now buffered client-side. In any case, we were the source of funds there, not the user.
We've taken great pains with Brave Ads (not an "ad network" by the way) to avoid any privacy problems, starting by making them opt-in, using in-browser-only data matched against a fixed-per-population-per-day catalog, confirmed via Privacy Pass (blind signature cryptographi). This is the wave of the future, even Google is trying to do a Privacy Sandbox now, but they are piling up risks and letting partners into the sandbox last I looked.
It's clear you have some underlying problem with us, but it isn't based on the facts. What's the story?
So you are ok with people modifying input you put into an app you installed? What if they modified the query paramter automatically to send info from your computer/iphone? Why are you covering so much for Brave in this thread?
