jleader

https://www.levels.fyi/?compare=Facebook,Amazon,Google&track... says higher numbers are better (more senior, more highly paid) at Facebook, so maybe the GGP post is talking about working at Meta, leaving, and then coming back to apply for a less senior role than they'd had previously? It confused me.

I have a strong suspicion that doing pure keyword searches of job descriptions (or resumes, on the employers' side) probably has some pretty hard limits on how well it can work, especially in the presence of participants with incentives to spam.

Exactly. When I read "Amazon Unlimited FTP Server" i heard a modem handshake sound in my head.

They leak uninitialized memory contents into the HTML being served; that memory could (and did) contain data from any other traffic that passed through their hands.

So a request sent to Cloudflare customer A's site could return data from Cloudflare customer B, including data that B thought was only being served via https to authenticated users of B.

I'm a long ways from being a VC, but I see one reason they might prefer the larger, higher-burn-rate company. I think one of the hard jobs for a VC-funded startup is growing really fast (to become big enough to be worth-while when the VCs cash out). The company with more head count may have a head-start on that growth (assuming they actually hired the right people). So if you're a VC looking to place a bet on a company becoming huge enough to offset all your other failed bets, a company that's being very cautious about growth might not be what you're looking for.

Also, there's apparently evidence that prior trauma puts you at greater risk of PTSD from subsequent trauma. Which helps explain why different people in more or less the same situation can have very different responses, because of their different experiences earlier in life.

One of the biggest invisible biases is thinking you've managed to free yourself of invisible biases.

So you're advocating forgiving the educational loans of doctors who lose their license? Or do you leave them massively in debt, without the (relatively) lucrative profession they had assumed would allow them to pay off that debt?

Example where the pilots involved pushed their luck until that 1% chance finally killed them (and their passengers): http://fearoflanding.com/accidents/accident-reports/how-to-d...

I think that's a bit harsh; it's more like "If you know how to issue instructions to a computer, you can derive anything else about the world from first principles."

The author keeps talking about going through all possible proofs built from the axioms, as if that's a thing that obviously could be done. However, if your system is complicated enough to allow arbitrarily large combinations of axioms in your proofs, then I don't understand how you can expect enumeration of all proofs to be a finite process. Any statement that says "enumerate all possible proofs" followed by "and then do X" is meaningless, because you will never reach the "do X" step!

My understanding is that telephone, cable, and power providers share the poles. Don't the power companies usually own the poles? So if they added internet providers to the list of companies authorized to share the poles, AT&T wouldn't have grounds for complaint. Since internet providers (such as AT&T) already share the poles, this seems like a reasonable move.

In my neighborhood we had 2 competing cable providers for about a decade, and they managed to share the poles (along with the phone company and the power company) without any problems (or at least, any problems that made the news).

One obvious reason would be if they don't trust the book value. For example, if the assumptions made in computing the book value are systematically wrong in some way.

The fact that the article presents different metrics in response to different inputs (CEO expressions of disgust correlated with 9.3% boost in overall profits over the following quarter, CEO expressions of fear correlated with 0.4% rise in stock price the following week) makes me strongly suspect excessive data-mining.

I haven't been able to find the actual paper in question; it looks like this is the abstract: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2533615. The lead author's page (https://web.njit.edu/~akansu/journal.htm) lists it as "Journal of Behavioral Finance, to appear, 2017."

It's not £8 per call, it's £8 per minute. I don't know the protocol for satellite calls, but I'd been taught that for both 911 calls and VHF-Marine distress calls, you're supposed to stay in contact with the dispatcher, to update them as the situation changes and to help guide the responders to your location. E.g: "The fire truck is at Smith Street, they can't find you." "No, I'm on Smith Lane, not Smith Street". Or "I can hear the helicopter, it sounds like they just flew by south of me, can you have them fly back 1000 yards further north?" For satellite distress calls, I would imagine this could take a while, though I imagine they'd set up a schedule where you'd only call back periodically.

According to https://blog.lastpass.com/2016/02/meet-the-new-lastpass-logo... they had to come up with a new logo due to "an unanticipated trademark lawsuit, filed early last year".

The difference is that if NASA screws up, there's a certain percentage chance that the bug will be exposed, and cause a problem. That percentage usually stays constant over the lifetime of the system, regardless of how many times the bug has already bitten them. In an adversarial situation, there's a percentage chance that the bug will be exposed, and after that a 100% chance that adversaries will exploit it.

There's a slightly longer press release about the Alzheimers findings at http://www.monell.org/news/news_releases/alzheimers_disease_...; searching for the co-authors' names led to what appears to be the paper: http://www.nature.com/articles/srep19495

"Volatile metabalome" sounds so much more scholarly than "pee smell"!

Presumably anyone who invested in etsy 9 months ago was surprised.

If you reach the page through a Google search ("tea grown in scotland" gave it as the 8th result), they show you the article after a short marketing-interests questionnaire.

I used to work in a 50-story building that had banks of elevators, each of which was hard-coded to only visit the lobby and the appropriate range of floors. For example, the first bank would only visit 2-13, the 2nd bank would visit 14-25, etc. The elevator cars only had buttons inside for the floors they were allowed to visit. There were also a couple service/freight elevators that could visit all floors (including a couple of service/equipment floors that weren't reachable at all by the normal elevators), and had a human operator/guard who logged badge numbers, floors, and property-removal authorization forms.

I think this sort of elevator allocation is fairly common for tall buildings, because it's horribly inefficient for people going to the 44th floor to have to wait while people get on and off at all of the 42 floors in between!

My understanding (from H1B coworkers and HR managers in previous jobs) was that the H1B is transferable to another company IF the other company agrees to sponsor it, and there's a fair amount of paperwork, hassle, and uncertainty to effect the transfer. That has to translate into at least a small salary discrepancy between H1B holders and permanent-resident employees.

Pretty much everyone with a million dollars laying around declined to spend it on acquiring Google back then, it's not like Yahoo was the only company they approached.

If torture makes you willing, doesn't that mean that when the torture starts, you're unwilling?

And are you really arguing that torture doesn't involve the use of force?

It's fairly common for humans to use "our planet" as (rather hyperbolic) shorthand for "our current form of human civilization on our planet".

Every place I've ever worked where I had any visibility into hiring, at the start of the search the company makes a decision as to who they want to deal with: hire an inside recruiter, retain a single outside recruiter (or several), or accept referrals from all outside recruiters. Once they've made that decision, when a recruiter sends them a resume, either the recruiter they're willing to work with and whose fee they've already decided they're willing to pay, or it isn't. In the latter case, they respond saying "we've got our own recruiting arrangements, thanks" and toss the resume. In that case, if the same resume comes in through a different channel later, they're under no obligation to the recruiter, and they'd be perfectly happy to hire you.

I suppose if they were working with a recruiter, and later ended the relationship, that could cause the problem you describe, but I haven't seen it happen (as a job seeker, a member of many interview panels, and as a hiring manager a couple times).

In theory, the recruiter isn't supposed to send resumes without the job seeker's approval, which means that when they do so, they've probably broken any agreement they have with the hiring company, so the company probably isn't bound by that agreement any longer. Whether you'd be able to convince the hiring company to take the risk of a lawsuit (that they'd presumably win) is another question, of course.

Keep in mind that under our current system, to a large extent giving up your money voluntarily to other people (charitable donations) gets you an exemption from giving up your money involuntarily (taxes).

So if they're not giving it to charity to avoid paying the taxes they whine about, why should we believe that they'll give it to charity if we get rid of taxation?

"Demonstrably untrue"? Are you arguing that there's no more gender inequality in software development?

My guess would be that you're allowed to copy, but they probably don't want you to publicly share what you've copied. Whether that desire for you not to disclose is legally enforceable should be confirmed with a lawyer, of course.

I would venture to guess that at least the nastiness now means that the politics are mostly out in the open and that it's easier to navigate.

Perhaps, for people who can tolerate the nastiness. The question is, how many excellent developers leave (or never participate in the first place) without saying a word, because they don't want to deal with the nastiness?

No one's suggesting "never say anything negative". As the original article said "I need communication that is technically brutal but personally respectful." In other words, you don't need homophobic sexist insults to tell someone they're doing something wrong.

You're setting up a false dichotomy, between pointless nastiness, and some imaginary ultra-polite fairy land that no one is asking for.

What's so hackerish and geeky and nerdly about insulting people for their sexual preference or appearance or grooming, instead of discussing the actual technical issues?