> Unbelievably saddened by the loss of my dear friend @SusanWojcicki after two years of living with cancer. She is as core to the history of Google as anyone, and it’s hard to imagine the world without her. She was an incredible person, leader and friend who had a tremendous impact on the world and I’m one of countless Googlers who is better for knowing her. We will miss her dearly. Our thoughts with her family. RIP Susan.
This sucks. I was at Google many years back and I remember her to be an awesome product leader. In fact even though I was another org, she was helpful and really helped me and our team.
excuse me for this offtopic (?) tangent, but can you please expand on what does being a good/amazing product leader mean? every kind of context helps, as I have no experience working inside these huge super-successful corps. thanks!
Makes insightful directives on what to put in as the core value of a product. When you are making stuff that the world really hasn’t seen before, it’s really hard to know what people want, as they often can’t tell you directly.
I’m not familiar with Susan’s work directly, but for example, it’s widely accepted that YT has the best revenue share and payout for its creators compared to competitors like twitch or TikTok.
Someone has to really sit down and figure out how getting paid for making internet videos works. It didn’t exist before.
Also great product leaders give team members principles and tools to work with (like metrics), so they don’t need to micromanage every decision, and the product can still be cohesive.
Regardless of how people feel about it, Meta/FB is sure putting a lot of resources into it and it seems like it's growing even on people who didn't do a text-first social network in the past.
Casey Newton, former editor @ The Verge & who currently runs platformer.news, a pretty significant tech news site in his own right. I'm not sure why he's going by 'crumbler' these days.
> Unbelievably saddened by the loss of my dear friend @SusanWojcicki after two years of living with cancer. She is as core to the history of Google as anyone, and it’s hard to imagine the world without her. She was an incredible person, leader and friend who had a tremendous impact on the world and I’m one of countless Googlers who is better for knowing her. We will miss her dearly. Our thoughts with her family. RIP Susan.
I'll say personally it's tragic to see someone like this pass in their 50s. Given Susan's impact on both Google as a whole and more specifically YouTube it's no understatement to say that she changed the world profoundly.
I don't think that YouTube, in its current form, or the creator economy that it produced, would exist in anywhere near the same shape had Google not acquired and then spent years funding the company at a financial loss.
She had a huge impact on YouTube and with it the world as I personally feel YouTube has become one of the largest resource of information on how to do almost anything for the newer generations as well as for people that had no access because they could not read. And as ai translation get better the impact on billions of people will be huge.
I can’t get the link to load, but here’s Pichai’s take:
> Unbelievably saddened by the loss of my dear friend @SusanWojcicki after two years of living with cancer. She is as core to the history of Google as anyone, and it’s hard to imagine the world without her. She was an incredible person, leader and friend who had a tremendous impact on the world and I’m one of countless Googlers who is better for knowing her. We will miss her dearly. Our thoughts with her family. RIP Susan.
Agreed Youtube is still my goto platform for entertainment and it is not a total cesspool like X - she left behind a great legacy never mind the fake controversies stoked by some content creators to get clicks.
There is always Kick and Rumble if you did not like it.
Censorship platforms do not benefit society. They benefit the censors and shareholders. Nobody reaps benefit from other people deciding what they shouldn’t be able to watch.
It's remarkably easy to think of examples that disprove that claim. First one to pop into my head was 'how to make bathroom cleaner at home with bleach and alcohol'
Yeah it was a tasteless comment. It's not good form to speak ill of the dead. Let sleeping dogs lie. Even the bible says something like that:
"Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge." -James 4:11 (KJV)
To answer your question and speak to the subject matter in the most mundane and academic sense possible, it was focusing in on YT's having become well-known for its level of having turned to political correctness (part and parcel of advertiser friendliness perhaps) in the form of changes in community standards, terms of service, and anti-mis-and-disinfo policies seen by strict free-speech advocates (and some other groups) as especially onerous and undesirable. Officially, the privately owned [but publicly traded] company can do that, and the matter even was decided upon by the United States Supreme Court recently. Although, it is also officially the case that much of this kind of selective information permissibility was indeed government-suggested, which does raise more questions about kosherness. Further, what could potentially be seen as the recursive externalization and deferral of responsibility (arguably for political, social, or economic reasons) rather than acknowledging and taking on hard tasks is a related moral issue (requiring tremendous courage given the scenario, and perhaps an academic rigor and breadth and depth of capacity not commonly found anywhere, anyway). These are the unsavory matters that many ivory armchair critics of the past, present, and future may sadly think of regarding the past several years of YT in particular (though really many observers were acutely aware of them over the last 10 years or so as a progression), and naturally a topmost corporate face is seen as having been some kind of responsible decision-maker (regardless of the truth of the matter).
Instead, those critics could be making better technological and sociological solutions, and educating, and admitting that people are imperfect and can all do their best. Instead of criticizing others.
Rumble and X posts are gloating that she blocked/delisted anti covid vaccine videos on YouTube, and then gets cancer, something the videos tried to warn people of related to vaccines.
On both sides probably. One side exaggerates statistics to make their point, and the other wishfully accepts unproven statements to feel better.
I've taken basically all vaccines ever recommended while growing up and traveling, but to say that the covid vaccine was "safe and effective" a year after coming out was a crazy stretch. Why couldn't they just say "we didn't have time to do long term studies, but we think it's fine and worth the risks"? But to say it's safe was a lie IMO and lost the vaccine side a lot of credibility.
One thing I've heard is that before age 40, people die of trauma or suicide. After age 40, people, including the healthy, just starting dying of everything.
Next time you're thinking "I wish I was the one who had made a billion dollars with my startup idea", remember that only health and family matter, and to have fun while you're alive. RIP.
Edit: some people misinterpreted my comment. I'm just one anonymous voice on the Internet, but am deeply saddened by the passing of Susan Wojcicki, who meant a lot to me as one of the many people who crossed paths with her professionally. I wish her family strength in a very trying moment. She did not deserve this. I've not met another business leader demonstrate everyday kindness to the degree that she did.
Her untimely passing is also a reminder to those of us who sometimes look up to such successful businesspeople that we should all appreciate our luck to be alive and enjoy it to the fullest, as I hope that she did as well, and as I'm sure that she'd prefer we did. RIP
So this comment applies to people who are at least somewhat affluent and career-ambitious. Perhaps this person does not need to be addressing everybody on the planet to be making a valid statement.
Both this
and the other posts are full of rich people apologists, “remember billionaires are humans too!”.
So out of touch when billions live in poverty but imagine telling them, “remember have fun money doesn’t matter” when they can’t even have basic clean water or clothes
I think you are interpreting the comment rather ungenerously. This sounds far more like finding common humanity with the deceased then somehow correlating cancer to wealth.
Well, yeah. For the sort of people who have "Title: CEO" on their Wikipedia page I suspect we're overdrawing from the pool of people where mission implicitly matters a little more than taking it easy. One way or the other you're going to die, but if your response to that is to relax and try to eke out a few years by keeping your stress down then CEOing is probably not for you.
They weren’t arguing the specific times, but the article itself reads as if AI generated and not as a real report of someone’s schedule, by someone who would know that person’s schedule.
The follow-on conclusion from that is that the times are highly suspect.
6hr, as per my comment. Its enough for some people, but average is 7-8. I go to sleep 45-60 mins after going to bed, and i wake 30mins before exercising. Im assuming that is fairly typical.
I think you have misinterpreted that sentence. It is saying that too little sun exposure is harmful to health in women. See also this study which found the same for men in Norway:
Oslo is about half the UV of SF, so you would need to spend half as much time in the sun for the same benefit. If you are not outside much during the day, its still a risk factor no matter where you live. This would apply to most office workers.
“ Research on a link between vitamin D and cancer is mixed. Some studies have shown a link between low vitamin D levels in the body and a higher risk of getting cancer or dying from cancer. However, it’s not clear if taking vitamin D or having certain vitamin D levels might help prevent cancer. It’s also not clear if vitamin D can help control the growth and spread of cancer. More research is needed to know what role vitamin D does or does not play in helping to prevent or control cancer.”
Yes indeed, it is sunlight that has the most evidence. Sun also releases nitric oxide in the skin, which reduces blood pressure, and high bp is associated with increased lung cancer hazard ratio, even for nonsmokers.
I’ve tried to google with no success but is it known if she smoked or ever did? Or is she part of the unlucky cohort (~12.5%) of non-smokers that get lung cancer?
But being rich or even just comfortable gives you a completely different experience during the end of life.
You can afford to quit your job and be with your friends and family.
You can afford to see that best doctors that will ensure you have as comfortable as possible end of life.
Your kids can afford to take a sabbatical to come spend time with you.
You can be sure that no matter what your kids will be financially secure.
You know that you got the absolute best care that you could.
The list goes on.
Cancer is horrible and everyone who loses someone hurts the same. But you absolutely cannot keep saying that being poor and rich doesn’t make a difference during the progress of this awful disease.
Only someone who has never been poor would ever say that.
If you're poor you won't even officially have cancer, because no one will diagnose you, since then you'd be entitled to services. Someone who's actually been poor would understand this.
Lots (if not all?) of hospitals offer free care options for patients in poverty. I grew up poor and had a family member who was able to be diagnosed, for free, a university clinic that offered free care, and then was able to receive free care through a program offered at one of top 5 ranked cancer systems in the US. Although the premium quality wasn't even that big of a deal. The overwhelming majority of care can be provided pretty much anywhere. It's not like a premium hospital offers super chemo or super radiation. The treatment is what it is, and all the money in the world isn't going to significantly change your odds of survival relative to basic treatment provided at any clinic anywhere.
The US healthcare system is broken beyond belief, and I do think there is some degree of managerial sociopathy around profit (particularly in the pharmaceutical and insurance wings), but by and large there still remain options for people even if they may be arduous, and I do think that hospitals and doctors are still significantly motivated just to provide good care.
The problem is that, for patients in poverty, the chance that cancer will be detected early enough for treatment is much, much lower. Cancer is often detected during check-ups for vague symptoms that most people can't afford to go visit a doctor for. By the time the symptoms become alarming or even debilitating it is often already too late.
Eh, I made 75k on my IRS forms last year and don't have health insurance. The poor people I know all have way better access to treatment through medicare/medicaid and various subsidies, and all use the medical system multiple times a year while I look up videos on YouTube (thanks susan!) to learn how to perform minor surgeries on myself
When my mother died of cancer (also in her 50s, still working as a public teacher in NYC so should have had great insurance for this) the hospital went after the estate with a million dollar bill. I couldn't even afford a lawyer to contest it at the time and ended up not inheriting anything except what I could take out of the house.
The only people with good outcomes are the rich who can afford it, and the poor who couldn't afford anything yet are still being treated because other tax payers are paying into this system.
it's not just access to healthcare, it's time, convenience, effort, whatever.
an impoverished single-parent 4 member family will not have time to exploit whatever medical care options are made available to them. this time deficit is one of the more common characteristics that impoverished families have in common.
in a way it's similar to the healthcare problems that startup people see early in the business; 'no time for the doctor, I have meetings -- i'll live with the ulcer' , just from a different angle.
Money does buy comfort and care. Also, it does not make one immortal.
We can choose what we take away from events. I could choose to feel unlucky that I haven't made as much money as someone else, and I would be justified in it, because being rich absolutely makes a difference. I just choose to feel lucky to be alive instead, and I'm just as justified. You are free to choose your own perspective.
Edit: I don’t want to get into an argument but just beware that your original post rubs a lot of people the wrong way. I respect that’s the pain and sorrow of a loss are the same but please don’t dismiss the power and need of money. It makes a world of a difference in the process of dying. You don’t want to sound like someone living on an ivory tower.
Let me put it this way. I don't think you and I are fundamentally disagreeing: money matters, to the extent that it allows to buy statistically better health outcomes and quality time with family. I don't personally think it matters more than that.
In general if you want people to take you seriously, don't make statements like "Two things can be true." It reeks of reddit condescension where they can't make a simple statement without implying the other party is stupid enough to think that only one thing can ever be true at once.
I mean, considering that people harped on about one specific thing being more true than the other, it certainly seems like people think that only one thing (being rich) can ever be true at once.
Stupidity is entirely your implication, but people generally like to see things in binary. It’s far easier than acknowledging that most things live on a spectrum.
Health is only temporary, and everyone in your family is going to die, until someone makes a trillion dollar startup to cure aging. So it is fundamentally wrong to put health, family, and work as things opposing each other, ultimately they are all needed on a way to get all of the galaxy filled with life. And as Susan have shown one can both do great work, and have a big family with 5 children.
Isn't that person and stress source dependent. Also working until late in life actually improves mental acuity and fights off dementia.
So maybe work but not in excessively high stress loads is your point?
Though i think your implied underlying assumption that because she was a leader in tech and under a high workload somehow caused this is unfounded and unnecessary.
Why it's a good idea to fill galaxy with life? Why should we care about it? Also, seeing that our current civilization-system is already at the brink of catastrophe, we should focus on less ambitious goals, such as preserving life on Earth.
Absolutely worth it. We wont fill the galaxy filled with life because the galaxy is huge and we are but one tiny tiny portion of it. For us to survive and do anything impressive takes all of human ingenuity.
Also those two items aren't mutually exclusive. Both can and should happen in tandem. Anyone arguing otherwise is just a mentally lazy person.
Whenever you have two goals competing for the same resources, you need to prioritize. I'm for preserving life on Earth first, and spreading it to other places as a distant second.
Again you aren't competing for the same resources. Our global resources are plenty. You are unnecessarily making a dichotomy.
Of course preservation of life on our planet should be paramount. We can also pursue space travel. Space travel research isn't whats killing our planet.
1. I don't want my children to die. And i don't want all the life on earth to be eliminated by a random asteroid.
2. Imagine two planets, people on one of them believe that expanding is the moral imperative, and the other want stay where they are. Eventually the people from the first planet will be technologically as far away from the people on first planet, as we are from people on Sentinel island. And therefore will be completely reliant on goodwill first people.
3. The only way to preserve life on earth is to develop space technology, once we have sufficient industry in space, controlling whether on earth will be a simple task, trivially solving climate change issue.
Yeah, but magnitude wise it doesn't seem like a huge difference of 56 vs 90. 56 to me now looks way early, but I assume when I get 70 then I start to think that 90 looks way too early. When I was 10 years old, 56 seemed miles away though. So there's always going to be this problem. Especially since supposedly the older you get the faster time seems to go. So the fact that I and we are all going to die at some point not too far away is still something that is constantly in the back of the mind and frequently on the front.
E.g. compared to being able to live more than 1,000 years or forever and with body in its prime condition recovery etc wise. E.g. having a 25 year old body for 1,000+ years.
Your message is very powerful, for the good, and I think people nowadays are used to extremes instead of the balance when they read something like your comment.
522 comments
[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 301 ms ] threadPosted by Sundar Pichai.
I’m not familiar with Susan’s work directly, but for example, it’s widely accepted that YT has the best revenue share and payout for its creators compared to competitors like twitch or TikTok.
Someone has to really sit down and figure out how getting paid for making internet videos works. It didn’t exist before.
Also great product leaders give team members principles and tools to work with (like metrics), so they don’t need to micromanage every decision, and the product can still be cohesive.
One wonders if his mom having terminal cancer was a factor in his overdoing it.
And I cannot imagine how news like that would hit a mother with cancer, when the only thing left for her is legacy.
Truly tragic.
https://x.com/sundarpichai/status/1822132667959386588
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casey_Newton
> Unbelievably saddened by the loss of my dear friend @SusanWojcicki after two years of living with cancer. She is as core to the history of Google as anyone, and it’s hard to imagine the world without her. She was an incredible person, leader and friend who had a tremendous impact on the world and I’m one of countless Googlers who is better for knowing her. We will miss her dearly. Our thoughts with her family. RIP Susan.
I'll say personally it's tragic to see someone like this pass in their 50s. Given Susan's impact on both Google as a whole and more specifically YouTube it's no understatement to say that she changed the world profoundly.
I don't think that YouTube, in its current form, or the creator economy that it produced, would exist in anywhere near the same shape had Google not acquired and then spent years funding the company at a financial loss.
> Unbelievably saddened by the loss of my dear friend @SusanWojcicki after two years of living with cancer. She is as core to the history of Google as anyone, and it’s hard to imagine the world without her. She was an incredible person, leader and friend who had a tremendous impact on the world and I’m one of countless Googlers who is better for knowing her. We will miss her dearly. Our thoughts with her family. RIP Susan.
https://x.com/sundarpichai/status/1822132667959386588?s=46
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Wojcicki
And her legacy will be the incredible and I would argue positive impact it has had on society.
There is always Kick and Rumble if you did not like it.
"Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge." -James 4:11 (KJV)
To answer your question and speak to the subject matter in the most mundane and academic sense possible, it was focusing in on YT's having become well-known for its level of having turned to political correctness (part and parcel of advertiser friendliness perhaps) in the form of changes in community standards, terms of service, and anti-mis-and-disinfo policies seen by strict free-speech advocates (and some other groups) as especially onerous and undesirable. Officially, the privately owned [but publicly traded] company can do that, and the matter even was decided upon by the United States Supreme Court recently. Although, it is also officially the case that much of this kind of selective information permissibility was indeed government-suggested, which does raise more questions about kosherness. Further, what could potentially be seen as the recursive externalization and deferral of responsibility (arguably for political, social, or economic reasons) rather than acknowledging and taking on hard tasks is a related moral issue (requiring tremendous courage given the scenario, and perhaps an academic rigor and breadth and depth of capacity not commonly found anywhere, anyway). These are the unsavory matters that many ivory armchair critics of the past, present, and future may sadly think of regarding the past several years of YT in particular (though really many observers were acutely aware of them over the last 10 years or so as a progression), and naturally a topmost corporate face is seen as having been some kind of responsible decision-maker (regardless of the truth of the matter).
Instead, those critics could be making better technological and sociological solutions, and educating, and admitting that people are imperfect and can all do their best. Instead of criticizing others.
lung cancer as well, I don't think she was a smoker so what a bad stroke of luck.
I'm not sure what to say about that anymore.
I've taken basically all vaccines ever recommended while growing up and traveling, but to say that the covid vaccine was "safe and effective" a year after coming out was a crazy stretch. Why couldn't they just say "we didn't have time to do long term studies, but we think it's fine and worth the risks"? But to say it's safe was a lie IMO and lost the vaccine side a lot of credibility.
Edit: some people misinterpreted my comment. I'm just one anonymous voice on the Internet, but am deeply saddened by the passing of Susan Wojcicki, who meant a lot to me as one of the many people who crossed paths with her professionally. I wish her family strength in a very trying moment. She did not deserve this. I've not met another business leader demonstrate everyday kindness to the degree that she did.
Her untimely passing is also a reminder to those of us who sometimes look up to such successful businesspeople that we should all appreciate our luck to be alive and enjoy it to the fullest, as I hope that she did as well, and as I'm sure that she'd prefer we did. RIP
So out of touch when billions live in poverty but imagine telling them, “remember have fun money doesn’t matter” when they can’t even have basic clean water or clothes
Big endian
https://med.stanford.edu/survivingcancer/cancer-and-stress/s....
https://press.farm/susan-wojcickis-daily-routine-youtubes-ce...
Sleep about 6hr, which isnt ideal. Not much chance to get sunlight which significantly reduces cancer incidence. Not much relaxing time.
The question becomes, is the work worth it?
Besides 10:00pm to 5:30am is 7.5 hours, which is either optimal or (arguably) too much.
Lastly, there's no clear evidence tying sleep duration to cancer incidence. See, e.g.: https://bmccancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12885-...
The follow-on conclusion from that is that the times are highly suspect.
We shouldn’t have people making such claims on HN without providing references.
She was also home having dinner with her family by 6:30pm.
“ Following sun exposure advice that is very restrictive in countries with low solar intensity might in fact be harmful to women's health.”
Thanks for the link. Now we know with certainty that lack of sunlight wasn’t a cause.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01695...
Susan lived in Northern California. How’s the solar intensity where she lived?
“ sun exposure advice that is very restrictive in countries with low solar intensity might in fact be harmful to women's health
https://amp.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/sun-and-uv/sun...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12936899/ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-13399-4
Yes, both rich and poor die of cancer.
But being rich or even just comfortable gives you a completely different experience during the end of life.
You can afford to quit your job and be with your friends and family.
You can afford to see that best doctors that will ensure you have as comfortable as possible end of life.
Your kids can afford to take a sabbatical to come spend time with you.
You can be sure that no matter what your kids will be financially secure.
You know that you got the absolute best care that you could.
The list goes on.
Cancer is horrible and everyone who loses someone hurts the same. But you absolutely cannot keep saying that being poor and rich doesn’t make a difference during the progress of this awful disease.
Only someone who has never been poor would ever say that.
The US healthcare system is broken beyond belief, and I do think there is some degree of managerial sociopathy around profit (particularly in the pharmaceutical and insurance wings), but by and large there still remain options for people even if they may be arduous, and I do think that hospitals and doctors are still significantly motivated just to provide good care.
When my mother died of cancer (also in her 50s, still working as a public teacher in NYC so should have had great insurance for this) the hospital went after the estate with a million dollar bill. I couldn't even afford a lawyer to contest it at the time and ended up not inheriting anything except what I could take out of the house.
The only people with good outcomes are the rich who can afford it, and the poor who couldn't afford anything yet are still being treated because other tax payers are paying into this system.
an impoverished single-parent 4 member family will not have time to exploit whatever medical care options are made available to them. this time deficit is one of the more common characteristics that impoverished families have in common.
in a way it's similar to the healthcare problems that startup people see early in the business; 'no time for the doctor, I have meetings -- i'll live with the ulcer' , just from a different angle.
lack of opportunity for time management.
Money does buy comfort and care. Also, it does not make one immortal.
We can choose what we take away from events. I could choose to feel unlucky that I haven't made as much money as someone else, and I would be justified in it, because being rich absolutely makes a difference. I just choose to feel lucky to be alive instead, and I'm just as justified. You are free to choose your own perspective.
Those were your exact words. But nice backpedal.
Edit: I don’t want to get into an argument but just beware that your original post rubs a lot of people the wrong way. I respect that’s the pain and sorrow of a loss are the same but please don’t dismiss the power and need of money. It makes a world of a difference in the process of dying. You don’t want to sound like someone living on an ivory tower.
Stupidity is entirely your implication, but people generally like to see things in binary. It’s far easier than acknowledging that most things live on a spectrum.
So maybe work but not in excessively high stress loads is your point?
Though i think your implied underlying assumption that because she was a leader in tech and under a high workload somehow caused this is unfounded and unnecessary.
One is the stress of essentially playing a game or working on a challenge and the other is existential.
Also those two items aren't mutually exclusive. Both can and should happen in tandem. Anyone arguing otherwise is just a mentally lazy person.
Of course preservation of life on our planet should be paramount. We can also pursue space travel. Space travel research isn't whats killing our planet.
2. Imagine two planets, people on one of them believe that expanding is the moral imperative, and the other want stay where they are. Eventually the people from the first planet will be technologically as far away from the people on first planet, as we are from people on Sentinel island. And therefore will be completely reliant on goodwill first people.
3. The only way to preserve life on earth is to develop space technology, once we have sufficient industry in space, controlling whether on earth will be a simple task, trivially solving climate change issue.
Jake died yesterday. I don’t even think he was 40 years old.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41201555
Susan was only 56.
Let’s at least give everyone a chance at a full life.
E.g. compared to being able to live more than 1,000 years or forever and with body in its prime condition recovery etc wise. E.g. having a 25 year old body for 1,000+ years.
We’d likely need trillions of dollars of investment, and a lot more people working on it, to increase our lifespan/healthspan.
But hey, we can hope together, for what that’s worth.