The thing that drives profitability and decision making at Google is its business model. Even if they wanted to change their business model, it's not easy and not always an option.
Sometimes the only power you have is to walk away. The article mentions that he had a ton of meetings with higher-ups during his last two weeks of employment there, but they were clearly uninterested in even acknowledging that there was a problem. Seems like he didn't have the power to change anything except by setting an example by leaving.
but how many protests against Google's actions (like the AI or whatever for DoD thing before it) before you realize it is just a bad fit and maybe you should look elsewhere lest your work be used for actions you disagree with?
I would just differentiate between strategy and the willingness to take a hit for something. I'm not sure what the best choice in the situation actually is, but the willingness to give up something is impressive
What if there are engineers working to write vulnerabilities and backdoors into Dragonfly? It’s been hypothesized that Heisenberg sabotaged the Nazi nuclear program from the inside, after all.
Engineers are commodities. If this is what the board and shareholders want, an engineer has a ~0% chance of leading a revolution and changing that. This is real life capitalism not The Hunger Games.
If engineers were commodities, hiring would be a much simpler process than it is now.
But engineers are not commodities, thus we spend 2, 3, or 4 interview sessions going over silly algorithmic puzzles, so companies can figure out if we're great, or if we suck.
US for-profit (non-bank, non-insurance, non-investor bund) companies, unlike European ones, are not legally required to maximise profits unless they are insolvent. Primary reason for short-time profit drive is investor pressure. The most important fiduciary duty is business competence. The right to reap profits is given in exchange for that.
