bonemachine

I stand corrected. Thanks.

The article I saw copied and pasted everywhere was a blogpost from someone who went through the bootcamp process (whether this person made it through or not, I'm not sure).

And actually, I specifically remembered the "counseled out of the organization" line as a sign that FB -- unlike many tech companies -- is actually tactful and respectful when it comes to letting people go for performance reasons (at least that stage in the process.

Nothing conspiratorial in the fact that the networks (correctly) assess that the American viewing public would rather watch Mad Men or Game of Thrones than The Snowden Files, any night of the week.

There already is one: http://github.com/

Why of course -- a certain percent get "counseled out of the organization", according to widespread reports.

That's part of the reason why they call it "bootcamp."

And that's what's so terrifying about Glass.

That one day, suddenly, it will just be... the new normal.

Soulless and robotic, to be sure. And eerily so.

But what else should we expect from the owners of a news portal that was, from the outset, itself nothing other than soulless and robotic, to its very core -- and whose passing almost no one is likely to mourn?

("No one", that is, except of course those who've recently found out they "no longer have a role with Patch", along with their unlucky dependents).

Wow.

Talk about showing one's true colors.

Yep, pretty creepy. But thanks for the tip!

Howabout "geekspeak?" Much catchier.

Am curious as to what the "public beaches" thing is in reference to (being as the links don't seem to be working in the original article):

   Some of the blows have been self-inflicted,
   like venture capitalists who compare progressivism
   to Nazism or who block access to public beaches.

Well it's still a "crime", technically, but for companies at Google/HSBC/BP-scale the consequences are more like those for a misdemeanor -- i.e. you might pay a trivial fine, and maybe get a little egg on your face, but that's pretty much it. Whereas for an individual or a small-timer, the analogous violation would be treated as felony-class, or worse.

So dreht sich alles auf der Welt.

The original article was really quite informative about this. Please have a look:

  When drivers accept a call, furthermore, they need to
  interface with the app. The suit goes on to note that
  under California law, it is illegal to use a “wireless
  telephone” while driving unless it is specifically
  configured to be hands-free — which the app is not. In
  essence, the suit argues that Uber was negligent in the
  “development, implementation and use of the app” so as
  to cause the driver to be distracted and inattentive.

The large companies obviously know how to avoid accountability by eliminating, or never creating paper trails.

Unfortunately it doesn't seem that it was a lack of a paper trail that kept the principals of HSBC out of orange pajamas. But rather an apparent perception on the part of the government that they were essentially beholden to HSBC for the sake of, well, it's hard to say precisely (but you can chose whether you want to take the AG's concern about "jobs" at face value or not):

  In December 2012, Assistant U.S. Attorney General Lanny
  Breuer suggested that the U.S. government might resist
  criminal prosecution of HSBC which could lead to the loss
  of the bank's U.S. charter. He stated, "Our goal here
  is not to bring HSBC down, it's not to cause a systemic
  effect on the economy, it's not for people to lose
  thousands of jobs."

See also: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/may/30/treasury-dep...

Oh, and since when does selling BTC anywhere, including Silk Road, constitute a crime?

Shrem, at least, wasn't charged with "selling BTC" but for violating this thing known as the Bank Secrecy Act.

As it says in, you know, the article that was linked to.

Agreed -- thumbnails are next to useless, distracting to look at + "thin out" the result set (by forcing vertical spacing), and presumably slow things down quite considerably, all around.

Please restore to something reflecting the aesthetics of the HN front page -- and the essence of beauty and simplicity it embodies.

Given his god-like status in the VC community -- and of the company he founded, which until recently has boasted of its "continuing relationship" with Mr. Perkins -- it's more than appropriate:

    http://www.kpcb.com/teams/partners-emeriti

"Tom Perkins has not been involved in KPCB in years."

Really now? Apparently he's still listed as a Partner Emeritus:

   http://www.kpcb.com/partner/tom-perkins

By continuing their relationship with KPCB long after leaving, they bring our portfolio companies the benefit of decades of deep experience.

It's far worse than a "bad metaphor." It's holocaust trivialization, basically.

I think we're well overdue for a surveillance DrStrangelove.

It wouldn't work. No film depiction could possibly be as absurd as what has already been foisted onto our everyday lives already.

Don't know about startups... but definitely seems true for romantic relationships (by and large).

I'm always surprised people yell about the U.S. not wanting to help those in poverty. I think that's pretty well refuted by noting that the U.S. is #1 in charitable giving.

Pah.

There's no way that you can assess a how well a society helps its poor simply by looking at one metric (like charitable giving) alone. It's just silly, on the face of it.

Again, yes "liquidity providing" might have some value, maybe. But it's just really hard to see it having anywhere near the social (or simply wealth + capital-generating) power, of say, nurses/medtechs, schoolteachers, effective policing, sane environmental management etc.

That was the original author's point (give or take a few work categories, which I'm taking the liberty of throwing in for the sake of illustration).

I'm under the impression that financial innovations throughout history have generally spurred capital investment. Innovations like fractional-reserve lending have made bankers&investors wealthy, but also spurred spending on infrastructure in a way that could be a win-win for society as a whole.

The point the author was trying to get at was not that finance geeks don't provide any social utility.

Just that in any rational category of needs, the value they provide would have to rank far below the value provide by nurse practitioners (and schoolteachers, police officers, lawyers even... a zillion other working categories, in fact).

If today's financial wizards went away,

It's not just a question of "if." To all intents and purposes, the financial services sector as we know it today (both in its technical prowess, and in sheer size and scope) did not exist 30 years go. True, we didn't have Facebook or iPads then. But people managed to live healthy lives, raise children, have careers, buy houses, fight wars, etc, just the same.

So from one point of view, yes the financial services sector can be seen to grease certain wheels (like IPOs, M&A). But in the larger picture, (in the view of many) it doesn't seem to provide all that much value, in proportion to the resources (and brainpower) devoted to it. It also seems to generate no end of collateral damage (the recent mortgage crisis being just one example).

Haven't looked at it yet, but very upworthy, from the idea at least. Have you considered making it configurable for vocabulary sets (or other kinds of questions)?

Better to just avoid dealing with recruiters altogether.

Except for secretive financial shops (if that's your thing) and temporary contracting gigs, they're almost never needed or useful.

Nearly all the good FT jobs are advertised publicly (and loudly). So just apply directly.

This is an unfortunate outcome, since Yale’s copyright assertion muddles the argument that Yale’s actions violate Peter and Harry’s freedom of speech.

Agreed. Very muddled thinking, indeed.

It's not necessarily a very good idea (although death marches, used judiciously, do work)

No they don't.

Or that is: they sometimes work for your boss (or your customer), in the short run. But they don't work for you.

And when push comes to shove, that's who you need to look for, right?

There's no reason, other than a feeling that you're expiclity under the client (or employer's) thumb -- e.g. a short-term financial emergency; or you're feeling very early in your career, and that you can live without a shining reference from them, after you've made your way through the tunnel of pain they've laid out for you; or you just didn't vet the other party properly, and weren't aware of their manipulate (and perhaps sociopathic tendencies) -- to put up with death marches, ever.

All you have to do (absent one of the above-mentioned emergencies) is say, "I'm sorry about the external pressures you're facing, but asking me to put in these hours this doesn't seem to be in line with the parameters we set up at the outset for this project/job. It's also just not going to be good for your working relationship, in the longer haul. So either you're going to need to find additional resources to help you, or I'm going to have to pass."

It's not easy. But it's doable. And trust me, you'll respect yourself a lot more in the morning.

For further guidance and inspiration on this topic, please see:

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Ways_to_Leave_Your_Lover

Perhaps a better title would be "Everything Wrong With Our Insatiable Big Data Fetish In 4 Easy Charts".

It wasn't adjusted to exclude traditional non-working categories of any kind at all. That's what made is such an obviously useless figure, right there in the first sentence.