Student suicides at Gunn High in Silicon Valley

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201501290900

3 student suicides this academic year (one was a recent alum), and 9 since 2009. Most of the cases had some element of stress/pressure to meet very high academic expectations. I didn't hear the whole program, but an interesting comment from a former teacher said a peer counseling class and less stressful vocational courses (like wood shop) were recently eliminated to make room for more AP courses.

The school is considering modifying the class schedule and homework levels, but I think those are just band-aids. Failing to meet the sometime ludicrous and frankly perverse expectations/goals in that community is not an indication that the student is a failure at life and should die. I would hope that the rabid competition and obsession to achieve (or fit some template of what success looks like) do not overwhelm students and make them forget that there are other ways to feel happy and successful in this life. That message has to start with adults, who should encourage balance over excess and set healthy examples that Silicon Valley Values are not the only values in the world.

Attack at Charlie Hebdo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zATVidAh81g

I just don't get it, why does an almighty being and his prophet need you (the gunmen I mean) to avenge their honor? If he really didn't like their Muslim jokes, can't he just use his power to smite them? Why does he need to wait for a few young men to plot and execute a cowardly attack, years after the Danish cartoons? And of all the "threats to Islam", is Charlie Hebdo really the most pressing one? At least I give ISIS and Al Qaeda more credit for going after corrupt dictators and NATO, who have killed Muslims by the hundreds of thousands. Not that I am supporting those groups and their actions either.

I think that just demonstrates the logical bankruptcy of militant religiosity (Islamic or otherwise). So god needed some inbred, corrupt monarchs to spend a ton of resources (thereby neglecting the poor and sick) to amass armies of rapists, murderers, and pillagers to retake Jerusalem on his behalf? God delivered the Jews out of Egypt with a bunch of plagues/"miracles", yet now he is counting on the IDF to use its warplanes and bulldozers to make sure all of ancient Judea is under Jewish control? I don't think religious leaders ever take the time to question how utterly ridiculous these concepts sound. If an elected public official were to say such things (without draping himself in the flag of faith), he would be laughed off stage.

I suppose freedom of expression means that we must fight to the death to permit the most despicable among us to engage in the most ugly speech known to man, and damn the consequences. But that is like a 2nd Amendment supporter feeling compelled to defend the most perverse uses of guns possible. I think we can love freedom without making a travesty out of it.

Probably Charlie Hebdo was fairly tame in the grand scheme of things - they weren't that blasphemous and they definitely weren't hatemongers. But I really wish there was a way to defend freedom without protecting the most irresponsible beneficiaries of that freedom. Like we would oppose any sort of bigotry and persecution of course, but if a party "incites" anger/conflict from unwise behavior, well then - they made their bed and they can lay in it. We obviously don't want to see them killed, but we are not going to risk more lives to protect them. It's like if you violate the terms of your insurance, you void your policy and coverage.

I know it's not so simple, but I don't see the point in risking a lot to protect some fringe uses of freedom by a minority that may not represent the general interests and opinions of the public. I don't think Charlie Hebdo is a fringe case, but maybe "The Interview" was - a crappy film that added no value to society, and we have thousands of other films to take its place.

----

Regarding "what were they thinking?" type questions towards religious fanatics there is a quote "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into" or something similar.  Logic has no place in a fanatical religious organization.  Sad but true.

The other thing is I REALLY REALLY don't like the idea you are pushing that annoying, inconvenient, ugly, etc uses of freedom of speech are somehow less worth protecting.  The ounce of legitimacy this brings to the crazy (as in literally crazy) people who think it is ok to kill someone bothers me but it also smells an awful lot like the first step on a slippery slope.  Look at abortion for example.  A legal right of women that, in some states, has walked its way back to practically illegal under the guise of women's health and safety.  That is how rights are taken from us, one step at a time, slowly.

So if we don't have people who stretch comfort in the other direction then the fanatics and the extremes of the viewpoints get to keep pushing the line.  Already no major network will show/print images of Mohammed (CNN took down the cartoon the Titanic showed earlier today, southpark episode still not shown on comedy central, etc etc).  

---

That is a pretty good quote, thx for sharing. How do we "unteach" religious extremism and fundamentalism then? They have some "Jihadi rehab" in Afghanistan - not sure how successful they've been. Sometime folks didn't volunteer for extremism, but were pushed in that direction by others. For some stories about NK defectors or Mormon cult escapists, what seemed to mentally "set them free" was the truth and asking questions. So logic has a part in that. Those folks were brainwashed at some point, but their experiences and thoughts got them out of it. It's probably not easy though.

I do feel that some speech is inherently more "valuable" than others. The Pentagon Papers and Declaration of Independence were subversive, maybe "illegal" publications. So are child porn and neo-Nazi materials (in some nations). I just think it's more reasonable to ask journalists and others to put their lives on the line to protect the ideas in documents like the DOI and PP (and make sure the world knows of them), rather than the other type. Think about the cop assigned to guard Charlie Hebdo who was murdered - is it much comfort to his family that he died protecting their right to make religious cartoons? I wouldn't want my loved ones to die protecting a porn peddler or neo-Nazi. But for the brave folks who risked/gave their lives for civil and labor rights, or for blowing the whistle on gov't/corporate crimes, at least their sacrifices led to greater justice and living conditions for all.

It's not like we have absolute freedom of speech now, and that Muslims, NK, and bleeding-heart liberals are slowly chipping away at it. We already can't threaten or slander people, we can't lie about some products, we can't pitch stocks without a license, etc. Maybe it's because the potential harm from speech like that outweighs the loss of freedom from prohibiting it. Societies make trade-offs all the time; I'm not saying that the status quo is perfect, but what degree of prohibited speech should we be comfortable with? I do think blasphemous speech should be legal. But if such speech has a high probability to elicit a violent reaction from extremists, maybe it is in the public interest to consider restrictions. Maybe that is the crazies holding us hostage and we cowardly agree to censorship, or maybe it's just prudence.

If we hold firm and protect free speech, are we prepared to also protect the people who may be at risk? Because we can't be everywhere at once; some terrorists are well trained, patient, and know how to exploit soft targets. So if we believe in free speech, we have an obligation to oppose extremism and dissuade people from using violence to express their anger and get even. But hate speech is still speech, so where does that leave us? Seems like a paradox. 

 

----

 

I don't want to get into semantics on how free "free speech" is wrt to slander and such.  I don't think there is any merit to the argument that because those aren't allowed blasphemous speech is on the table.  But we can go there if you choose.

As to dying for a dutch cartoonist, that seems silly to me.  Should be feel better or worse than the person who did for Pepsi as a trucker?  Or for Mott's as a farmhand?  Or for Exxon as a rig worker?  People die all the time for no reason, bad reasons, etc.  And they aren't in professions that expect to be in harms way.  So why should anyone feel extra bad given how he died?  Why should the cartoonist share any blame?  You think he enjoys requiring armed security?

And ultimately if we accept that extremists aren't logical, then what insult can we be sure won't become dangerous?  How can anyone shirt and say one is ok to die for and another is not?  Boko haram (sp?) Kills to stop women from being educated in the name of Islam, can we criticize them?  Are we only allowed to criticize them in word not picture?  

I guess I don't really believe we get any safer by restriction.  Do you really believe those terrorists exist only because of a dutch cartoonist?  Any contrivance will do to recruit and kill.  And REALLY don't believe the govt is good at choosing where that line is.  Think post 9/11 and how it has taken nearly 14 years and we still can't get rid of some of the bad decisions made as a result.

Oh yeah and I have no clue how to un-religious-ize fanatics. 

---

Thanks, I think this is a very nuanced and important issue (sorry that my responses are pretty long). Ideally, speech should be unrestricted and everyone is sufficiently civil to not get violent over disputes. And the courts exist to sort out matters of slander, deception, etc. So the threat of lawsuits or other punishment does deter some people from criticizing/lampooning certain people/entities - is that already too much censorship? I do think it is in the public interest to preempt some dangerous speech before it has a chance to cause widespread harm (overt fraud like claiming some poison is actually a miracle diet pill that thousands of people will want to try). Obviously the gov't is not the ideal decision maker in terms of judging speech, but unfortunately we don't have a better enforcer at this point.

Sorry, maybe it was a bad argument for me to claim that dying for certain forms of free speech would be more or less valiant. As you said, workers in most jobs expect to be safe as they perform their jobs. Sure, some crazy accidents happen, and those who perform explicitly hazardous work usually sign some waivers and are comped accordingly. It is possible (but unlikely) that an average worker at a gas station will be killed by an environmental fanatic, or a federal paper-pusher will be killed by an anti-gov't nut. I suppose there is always some reason why a violent, imbalanced person would want to kill us over our profession, and fortunately we live in a society where many people understand that it's unacceptable to use violence that way.

So I agree that speech is not inherently the problem, but instead we need to teach some people that violence is not an appropriate means of self expression. Maybe those terrorists would "still exist" if Charlie Hebdo didn't exist, but they would focus their hate on other targets (Assad, Israel, the US military, etc.). I do not think mere cartoons "created" those killers; maybe a range of factors created them - Jihadist brainwashing and military training, lack of civic education, socioeconomic marginalization. But the cartoons may have incited them to action, or at least gave their imam/mentor a straw man to blame and preach hate against.

It's like a raging bull - the animal is out of control and wanting to gore someone. There's a crowd of people nearby who see the bull coming for them. Many will run away and disperse, and the bull might eventually settle down or chase some other poor chap instead. But it would be pretty silly for some in the crowd to start waving red flags and taunting the bull, right? Especially if the bull might also gore innocent bystanders who happen to be next to the guy with the red flag.

Does our desire to exercise free speech entitle us to put associates in harm's way, when they may or may not agree with our actions? Some in France and all over the world are standing by Charlie Hebdo in solidarity, even making new cartoons mocking the killers and vowing that they will not be silenced. That is brave I suppose, and well within their rights. But now France is more of a target for Jihadis (they already were somewhat, for their actions against ISIS, treatment of immigrants, etc.). I am sure there are some in France who don't want this extra attention and would rather keep a lower profile. But since they are French, they are also targets because of the actions of their countrymen. Is that fair? Maybe some cartoonists are willing to put themselves at risk for their art and politics. But can/should they speak for their whole society, and condemn all of them to a higher level of danger? Even though these killers were born in France, it's possible that other angry killers in Muslim nations may now preferentially target French tourists, etc. France put its embassies on high alert. All I'm saying is that there are global repercussions; it's not just a simple cartoon and the exercise of free speech.

As you said, maybe restrictions are not the answer (I concede that censorship could be a knee-jerk reaction to our revulsion over violent incidents like what we just saw). We outlaw speech X, and some other crazies will get upset over speech Y. It's whack-a-mole, and I don't know where it ends. For people who are willing to engage in violent terrorism, they will always be able to find a target or someone that they disagree with if they want to look hard enough. We live in a fairly free speech society, but billions of other people don't. They may not agree with our values, they may not have good education systems and rule of law, and they have access to weapons and training. Some spiritual and political leaders fill their heads with misinformation, telling them that it's their duty to defend the faith and kill blasphemers. So we become targets, even though we really meant those people no harm.

How do we deal with that? We can't interfere in the affairs of so many other nations, and we can't force them to adopt our values. Maybe tolerance and rejection of violence are universal human values, but no one can enforce that globally, and violations abound. So until we figure all that out, we do our best to protect our freedoms and our people, and accept that sometime violent extremists will attack us? This is just the cost of our way of life? I know some people are more than willing to bear that cost, but others among us are not. I guess that is why we have civil debate and a gov't of the people, so we can collectively decide what degrees of risk and freedom we want for ourselves?

 

The police's persecution complex

Oh for F sakes, the hits just keep on coming. Don't blame me for the spam, blame them. ;)

http://news.yahoo.com/police-union-pushes-for-cops-to-be-included-in-federal-hate-crimes-law-183729328.html

So now the cops want violence against them to be classified as hate crimes. And of course the violence that they perpetrate on others (who disproportionately happen to be brown/black) are not. I don't know the full history, but I think hate crimes laws were created (on top of regular criminal laws) as an extra deterrent against such bias-driven crimes.

But there is already a ton of deterrent to violent crimes against cops: (a) angry cops will kill you with great prejudice (remember Dorner), and may kill you first before you have the chance to shoot them, (b) cops have a lot of protection and weapons, (c) the justice system will already come down on you like a ton of bricks (and maybe your family too). So I don't think the extra risk of a hate crime conviction on top of that will affect anyone's behavior.

You know what will stop people from attacking cops? Cops behaving better. It's not the only way, but it's probably the most impactful one, and one that they can control without asking the Feds to change the laws (which is slow and uncertain).  

“Enough is enough! It’s time for Congress to do something to protect the men and women who protect us,” Chuck Canterbury, the president of the [police] union, said in a statement Monday. The group has long lobbied for harsher punishment for those who harm law enforcement officers.

Ah, so now the cops are the ones saying "enough is enough"? That's pretty insulting, since that slogan was recently used by the victims of cop violence (that greatly outnumber cop deaths)?

----

This is so dumb on so many levels I don't know where to begin. I did some cursory research on the typical punishment for killing a cop, and (correct me if I'm wrong) but it appears that in most states this is punish-able basically by only a life sentence or death penalty. Hate crime laws tend to "only" add 5-10 years to sentences, so I don't really get the point of this.

But this also speaks to what police/police apologists don't get about this whole conversation. If you kill a cop, you get punished. I know in the more recent case the guy shot himself, but people don't get to kill cops and walk away scot-free. Cops on the other hand, as we have seen, kill people in unjust situations and receive no punishment or even the slightest bit of accountability. The delicate flowers that cops have turned into when it comes to any sort of criticism is crazy.

Quick thing on hate crime laws: my understanding is that they are applied to crimes that affect communities, not just the person injured/murdered/whatever. For example, if it's determined that a gay person was murdered for being gay, that's classified as a hate crime because that sends a threatening message to the whole gay community, not just the person killed. So based on my understanding, it's even more than just an extra deterrent against bias driven crimes.

----

Some statistics from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics 2012.

Law Enforcement Workers:   97 deaths, 30 from homicide, the rest from roadway accidents and slips & trips

Supervisors, Sales workers: 100 deaths, 46 from homicide, the rest from roadway accidents and slips & trips

Police apparently kill at least ~400 people per year in the US.  About 100 of those black.  This is excluding justifiable homicide and unreported killings.  

Law enforcement is not in the top 10 most dangerous occupations.  And it is worse if you include compensation for the risk since police are relatively well compensated (compared to say, fisherman or agriculture workers).

---

Agreed with both of you.

Yeah being a cop is statistically a better-than-average job for fatality risk. And as you said, they get huge risk comp in the form of earlier retirement (after 15-20 years I think), generous pensions (except broke places like San Jose and Detroit), and a lot of time off (to "de-stress" - I guess that is good for public safety). I hate to sound so harsh, but they are acting like "cry babies" as D alluded to. It's sadly getting to be like the police are a separate society/class with their own interests and rules. In no job should you have to put up with being shot at, but cops were not conscripted into the force - they volunteered with eyes open. OTOH, the uneducated poor more-or-less have no choice but to join the armed forces.

As D said, try to kill a cop or actually kill a cop, you are finished. Get beaten or killed by a cop, he probably won't be affected much, or he might get "early retirement" if there is enough media attention.

This is probably too expensive and controversial to implement, but why should cops have a monopoly on law enforcement? Even in wars, the US hires allies and mercs. Should we be able to pay for private professional security to keep the peace, as well as protect us from and watch the cops? I guess the rich can and already do have that, but the most at-risk communities can't afford it.  

---

"Law Enforcement Workers:   97 deaths, 30 from homicide, the rest from roadway accidents and slips & trips

Supervisors, Sales workers: 100 deaths, 46 from homicide, the rest from roadway accidents and slips & trips

Police apparently kill at least ~400 people per year in the US.  About 100 of those black.  This is excluding justifiable homicide and unreported killings.  "

I want to emphasize that last part, because the more people look into it the more it seems that there is a significant number of unreported killings, the very idea of which is insane to me.

http://regressing.deadspin.com/were-compiling-every-police-involved-shooting-in-americ-1624180387

http://regressing.deadspin.com/deadspin-police-shooting-database-update-were-still-go-1627414202

http://gawker.com/what-ive-learned-from-two-years-collecting-data-on-poli-1625472836

Two separate sections from that last article:

"The biggest thing I've taken away from this project is something I'll never be able to prove, but I'm convinced to my core: The lack of such a database is intentional. No government—not the federal government, and not the thousands of municipalities that give their police forces license to use deadly force—wants you to know how many people it kills and why.

It's the only conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence. What evidence? In attempting to collect this information, I was lied to and delayed by the FBI, even when I was only trying to find out the addresses of police departments to make public records requests. The government collects millions of bits of data annually about law enforcement in its Uniform Crime Report, but it doesn't collect information about the most consequential act a law enforcer can do.

...

This is the most most heinous thing I've learned in my two years compiling Fatal Encounters. You know who dies in the most population-dense areas? Black men. You know who dies in the least population dense areas? Mentally ill men. It's not to say there aren't dangerous and desperate criminals killed across the line. But African-Americans and the mentally ill people make up a huge percentage of people killed by police.

And if you want to get down to nut-cuttin' time, across the board, it's poor people who are killed by police. (And by the way, around 96 percent of people killed by police are men.)"

----

Yeah I don't think it would work out well - look at the case of private prisons in the US:


https://www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights/private-prisons

I'm not sure what the answer is either. But overseas generally cops are a lot better behaved than in the US. Part of it I think is the training culture. They are trained as and are seen as a customer service job, not a paramilitary job where you occasionally have to talk to the plebs, and have much more oversight: http://www.quora.com/How-do-UK-police-compare-to-US-police

I know everyone is for states rights or whatever, but I honestly think they ought to federalize police or at least turn it over to the states and increase the professionalism of the police force.

Another aspect to look at is that if you give officers the option of deadly force, some will resort to it as a first resort rather than a last resort. They did a study where solo cops were much less likely to get into firefights with the bad guys and wait for backup than when cops went together, as one officer alone is more cautious. Likewise, when things get rough in the field (say a crazy guy that isn't listening to commands reaches into his pants), if you have a gun some will use it. Result: crazy guy dead because he was pulling a toothbrush out. A good cop would assess the situation, try to reason with him, and defuse it. Rambo cops will just shoot and claim they felt threatened (which is the bar for use of deadly force).

I'd think that increased professionalism, breaking down of old boy cop networks (in the UK they rotate police, for example), and tighter control over implements of deadly force would be really helpful here.

----

I guess when the public is dependent on some sort of paid entity with little oversight (whether it be for a ride home or law enforcement), corruption and abuse are bound to occur. For the more recent police killing in STL (of an armed black teen this time), I think the cop had a body cam but it wasn't on. I don't understand why the officer should have the ability to control the camera - that defeats the purpose.

That is a good initiative about compiling shooting data. If Waze & its users can track all the car accidents in the US, then the crowd should be able to do the same for shootings (that usually attract onlookers, unless it's a corrupt cover-up killing). I agree with you that the lack of transparency is likely deliberate. Just as the gun lobby has blocked most efforts to create a national gun registry/database/etc. Ironically the cops are against the gun lobby on that issue, but likely engage in the same practices when it suits them. 

----

I totally agree with you about the private prisons (and also mercs) - but remember that those "service providers" were hired because the gov't orgs were not equipped to do the job on their own. They were called in as spare capacity. But for the "private cops", they would be a hedge or alternative to the public cops. And since they would be hired by the community, they could be fired at any time. Of course all this sounds wonderful and perfectly smooth on paper, like libertarianism in general. :)

Ah - I forgot to make a joke about M's comments on mercs: Blackstone and Treadrock... "Treadstone" was the illegal CIA program in the "Bourne" movies, and BlackRock are the guys who have all our retirement cash. :) Blackwater are the corrupt mercs from Iraq, but they have been renamed to Xe, and then Academi (gotta love rebranding).

I agree about the rush to deadly force - when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Of course cops aren't shooting indiscriminately into crowds (usually), but they are empowered (and probably encouraged) to forgo de-escalation and end conflicts with guns. I guess a similar pathology to the stand-your-ground and mass-shootings phenomena in the US. So it comes back to the 2nd Amendment issue - fewer guns on the street and better regs will reduce the violence potential of the public. That in turn will likely make the cops less paranoid and trigger happy, or even justify patrolmen to be unarmed and backed up by armed specialists for hostile situations (like the UK). Maybe the gutting of public services and budget cuts are also contributing to this problem. Cops are the last ones to endure cuts, but they have had them. Now maybe more patrolmen have to go on duty solo. I would be curious to know what % of questionable cop shootings occurred when the cop was solo (but as we now know, stats are hard to come by).

A major reform is needed; I think the cop-first mentality and culture is too deeply ingrained that small changes won't help (esp. if they turn off their body cams). New training, hiring criteria, and oversight are needed - but who is going to write those laws? Any change-oriented candidate would get a lot of heat from the cop lobby, and his/her opponent would get their contributions.

I agree with you about federalizing the cops, since smaller police forces have poorer training/oversight, and likely contribute disproportionately to misconduct problems. Standardizing the police would create a lot of efficiencies (and sharing of best practices, etc.), but the states rights crowd would raise hell as you said.

Also agreed about changing the mentality from occupying army to service provider. Very few people complain about FDs, and there is much less misconduct. The PDs that have the best rep with the public (even among minorities), fewer violent incidents, and have shown the most reforms/improvements, all have robust community outreach programs. But currently they are recruiting and giving badges to macho/meathead/blindly loyal types, not empathetic/thoughtful/fair types.

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201412230900

---

It seems like somehow police have been lumped in with the military as a must support or no chance of political office entity.  On the radio this morning Ryan seacrest (don't judge me!) Was complaining that there was crazy pressure to wear some "I support the police" hat during his new years eve show.  And subsequent death threats when he didn't.  If even seacrest thinks it is overboard imagine what your everyday douchebag must think.

And if you were an app maker, Waze for cop shootings would be a great release about now.  Now we just need a catchy name.  Raze?  hYelp?  

I'm hopeful that mandatory body cameras help and Los Angeles is implementing them which might help on the national level.

----

That's an interesting observation. I think it's very offensive (and undemocratic) for special interest groups to "pressure" the general public to show support for them - lest we be labeled as unpatriotic, soft on crime, etc. "If you're not with us, you're against us." That is another form of intolerant bullying. If you are so great, you don't need to convince anyone with slogans and shirts. It reminds me of a dictator's thugs forcing the citizens at gunpoint to come out and cheer at the dictator's parade, when they all actually hate his guts.

Already the cops get disproportionate support, resources, and political power. They want our love and admiration too? During the War on Terror, I didn't like those bumper stickers that said something like "USMC, thank me for protecting your freedom." My freedom was in pretty good shape without you shooting and bombing anyone. I didn't ask you to go over there, and I do show my thanks by paying taxes and doing other civic duties (incl. protesting when some leaders want to send soldiers to fight unnecessarily).

Cops mostly take evidence after crimes occurred, harass suspicious looking people, and enforce traffic laws. They rarely "prevent crime", except for the deterrent effect of their presence. It's not like Batman swooping in to thwart a bank robbery. So for the cops to imply that they are heroes tirelessly watching over the helpless masses, and keeping the rapists/murderers at bay, is getting it twisted. Violent crime has been on the decline in the US for the past 60 years or more, and policing may not be even a top 3 driver of that (more like economics and other social forces). But still, our gun violence rates are much worse than the EU and east Asia, but as we've discussed, it's concentrated on mostly poor minorities and not the rich (or the cops). If the police go out of their way to protect those folks with the least power, and who are the most at risk, then I would give them props. But they mostly just leave those "animals" to their own devices, keep the riffraff caged in prisons/ghettos and away from the suburbs and malls.

Yeah for all of the LAPD's past sins (and they still have many lingering problems), they have shown a lot of leadership in reforms like community policing, hiring and promoting minorities/women, and the use of some technologies.

Marissa Mayer's changes at Yahoo!, 2012-2013

Here's an excerpt from an upcoming book about Mayer and the history of Yahoo! If this account is accurate, she made changes that are very similar to Google practices, but I guess that's the only other company she's worked for - so no big surprise.

• She tried to increase mgmt. transparency and communication, so she started a series of Friday afternoon townhalls called "FYIs" (Google's meetings are on Thursdays and called "TGIFs")
• The food and drink at Yahoo! are free and high quality (I believe they were not free in the past?)
• She implemented a goals-based quarterly performance review process ("QPRs", called "OKRs" at Google) with fixed %s of workers allocated to each ratings tier (and repeat low performers would be let go)

QPRs are the biggest source of employee complaints now. It's possible that the Yahoo! system is closer to Microsoft's (that was abandoned after Ballmer left, due to myriad problems and perverse incentives). 

• When FTEs are uniformly stack-ranked vs. immediate peers, the company risks punishing the "weakest" high performers on strong teams, and rewarding the "best" slackers on poor teams
• The best talent didn't want to work together (harder to get top rating), and focused on specific projects that had the best chance of making them look good
• Due to calibration (where higher managers could unilaterally change ratings for workers they barely knew so their teams would fit the target distribution), resentment and workplace politics increased - meaning less time spent on actual work
• The quarterly rankings left little room for error and set people up for disappointment: an FTE who was rated misses/misses/meets/meets may still get fired, even if (s)he was showing diligence and improvement, and an FTE who was rated exceeds/exceeds/meets/exceeds might not get promoted

Mayer earned some love for refusing carry out massive layoffs (~30-50% staff) that the Board and others were calling for (she did conduct some small layoffs and product sunsets). However, some commented on Glassdoor that she carried out "stealth layoffs" instead. By eliminating WFH and implementing QPR attrition, Yahoo! likely encouraged less committed folks to leave, fired the ostensible low performers, and saved money by not having to pay severance. I am not sure how much their headcount has shrunk since Mayer joined, but some Yahoos are not happy that the salary saved from the stealth layoffs might have been spent to recruit new talent with comp packages much higher than what veteran Yahoos were making. And the stricter promo reqs of QPR makes it harder for veteran Yahoos to advance and get raises too.

Yahoo! needed to cut some dead weight, motivate the staff, and recruit new talent to revitalize their business. Mayer seemed to carry that out with some success, but there were morale and priorities consequences. I'm not saying that turning Yahoo! around is an easy task (others have tried before Mayer), and you can't please everyone, but it may be hard to accurately estimate the net benefits of her policies because there are so many complex repercussions.