> “We will continue to fight to protect our members’ ability to control the information they make available on LinkedIn.”
LinkedIn has full control over this, it's their site. What they are fighting for is the ability to choose who gets public access to various pieces of information; which its member do not get control over.
Culture comes from the top and Uber's is pretty rotten.
I did an interview there this year and it was the most aggressive questioning I've ever had. Two of 5 interviewers were really in my face while architecting systems; it was bizarre and I almost walked out. Nothing compared to the 'cultural' interview where there gave me an example of them knowingly breaking the law because "they knew they were right" and then asked if I had a similar work experience I could describe. I told them I have never knowingly or even likely unknowingly broken the law at a job.
I was trying to use them to counter offer another company but in the end they never returned my calls or contacted me to say if I got the job or not.
FWIW, I had a very similar experience and have a friend who had the same. Very off-putting. I was in the second round on-site and more or less felt like I probably had the job in the bag, still at the end when I met w/ the hiring manager I told him I appreciated the time but it wasn't for me. And wow, that pissed him off. Good riddance.
Sometimes I wish I had the energy to follow through all the way to the end of a process even when I know I'm not interested in working somewhere.
Waiting till they give you an offer and turning them down is probably the only way to get companies with terrible interview processes to treat their own interview behavior as signal.
"... the 'cultural' interview where there gave me an example of them knowingly breaking the law because "they knew they were right" and then asked if I had a similar work experience"
Incredible. Isn't this how mafia organizations hire?
I don't know if this interview method would expose Uber to liability under organized crime laws, but maybe it should.
Not a lawyer, but.. If they admitted this much I'm pretty sure that would count under RICO. After all, mafia bosses never actually kill anyone or sell drugs.. they only 'enable' and 'encourage' others to..
"The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them in doing, closing a perceived loophole that allowed a person who instructed someone else to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because he did not actually commit the crime personally.[1]"
Organized crime doesn't have to work exactly like the Cosa Nostra to qualify. I guess neither of us know enough about the relevant law to take this discussion much further.
I think they just didn't think I was a fit, which I take as a complement. I could have played the part better but I went through the interview like any other and actually said at some point that "I don't like disruption was a core business practice".
I had a phone interview with them 2 years ago and the interviewer was in the room with two other _very chatty_ people and the three of them were engaged in a separate conversation from my interview pretty much the entire time. I cut that one short and don't regret it in the least.
Run a cab company without a cab license, but pretending it's not a cab company by not paying your employees a fixed salary nor giving your employees benefits. That's generally breaking the law in many parts around the world.
All they asked me for was a similar experience, not if I had broken the law. The example and question were based on their Core Value of 'Persistent Confrontation' which basically was spun to mean 'don't stop if you know you're right' but I took actually meant 'don't reevaluate your position in the face of new information'.
I'm being somewhat vague on purpose; some level of NDA got signed and my username doesn't exactly keep me anonymous.
>> That aggressive nature is both the reason they have problems and the reason they have been so successful.
It might be the reason they're currently the most successful company in that market BUT Lyft and others aren't dealing with the sort of mess Uber currently is. Maybe that aggressiveness will bite back hard enough that another company will be winning that market long-term.
You can calculate lots of interesting things about a face based on this. Including generating a face that people will remember very well because of unique features or one that is hard to recognize.
The optimizations our minds have found for such complex tasks are amazing.
It's important to remember what you are trying to do when you are being accommodating. You want to help others help themselves so that they are more capable in the end.
The author here took 100% of the work and pains from those around him. The people he helped were relieved of that task but are no more prepared for it should it arise again.
Personally I do try and be accommodating to those around me; but I include them in what is being done so they can learn from it. This give them back more than just result of the task and enables them to hopefully accomplish it themselves next time.
I think "Advanced Manufacturing Jobs" are going to be roboticist, machine learning and mechanical engineer related. Foxconn is moving this direction and I'm betting Apple thinks they can do it as well as them. Plus possible tax breaks based on Trump's comments.
Definitely possible, Apple uses vendors in a way that would be difficult to do themselves. However, if I'm right about the types of jobs this will create it does fall in line with Apple's expertise more than a human built process. Just as they are building their own silicon they may want to own pieces of build process.
We also did a POC with PhantomJS and found similar issues, as well as generally flakiness causing too many false negatives. Ended up not using it; I'm hoping this can simplify things are give something more solid to build on.
LinkedIn has full control over this, it's their site. What they are fighting for is the ability to choose who gets public access to various pieces of information; which its member do not get control over.