I don't agree in this context. The terms "misconduct" and "bullying" are far too close to allegations of crimes. Our society is trending toward disregard of the presumption of innocence, and that is far more of a societal problem than having an aggressive and ambitious team leader who cares more about results than coddling.
If he committed a crime, the evidence should be presented. If he did not, then tarring him with terms like "misconduct" and suggesting that Google should take retributive action against him are anathema to a fair society.
For those who disagree, let me pose a question: what, exactly, does bullying constitute if it doesn't also constitute an assault or criminal harassment? and with regard to whatever residual scope of the term remains, why does that justify denying a promotion to someone behind a project as ambitious and successful as DeepMind?
Being publicly nasty to someone on a regular basis is bad and I wouldn't want it in my work environment, but I don't think the government usually gets involved at the civil level, let alone the criminal level.
> what, exactly, does bullying constitute if it doesn't also constitute an assault or criminal harassment?
For this statement to be true, you would have to be asserting that all children that do this are also guilty of criminal harassment or assault.
This is such a clearly absurd position that asserting it in the first place demonstrates an absolute lack of understanding of what bullying is. I'd even go so far as to say that it is a defense of wielding power in socially negative way that frays relationships and degrades social environments.
On the contrary. At no point did I make a comment on your character or any other aspect of you personally. The only comments I made were specific towards your question and its implications.
You can call it a personal attack if you wish. That doesn't make it true.
> would you mind answering the question?
I won't because as I pointed out already, your question comes from a flawed premise.
Oh dear. I am afraid I must have communicated poorly or perhaps you misread the question.
I am asking what the delta between set B (bullying) and set C (criminal activity) is. What false premise is there? If you don't think there's a delta, then you agree with me ab initio. If you do think there's a delta, then how can you say that asking what the delta is relies on a false premise?
And I'm telling you you can answer your own question by examining what the delta is between what is considered bullying between students in K-12 and criminal activity.
Do you believe that bullying between students in K-12 is criminal activity. That's what I'm getting from you asking that question. Either that or you don't believe bullying is even a real thing.
