Structure wise the Digital Service is made up of a headquarters team within the White House, 18F which is an internal software development organization within the General Services Administration, and then embedded teams growing to be within each cabinet level agency. This creates a mixture of distributed execution plus centralized resources to help each team as needed.
This is correct. The HQ team is a part of OMB, the White House's Office of Management and Budgest.
The agency teams can be thought of as a franchise model, we work closely with the HQ team and the other agency teams, but we're also a for real part of the agency we work at.
I was disappointed to find out yesterday from Jeff M. that there is no remote position available. I hope this changes at some point in the near future.
Hey, since I can't find your name or contact info on your account I figured I'd comment saying that I run Bootcamp and it sounds like we should chat (dr@fb.com) :)
I feel like this is what the rating system helps deal with. You should be finding yourself with drastically more taxi experiences where 20% is a reasonable tip.
The earlier drafts were much more like that. They were largely a collaboration between a few web companies who had deployed OAuth 1.0 with Dick Hardt who had written WRAP at Microsoft. One of the major design goals was producing a protocol simple enough that client developers would not have to use libraries.
But the OAuth 2.0 spec we were working off of is now eighteen months old and as Eran said the vast majority of those contributors have drifted away from the effort over this past year :-\
Really like the transparency and applying the same rules, but at the same time when I search for "Google Chrome" the single ad in a yellow box above all of the results is for http://www.google.com/chrome. I guess I wonder if this page rank demotion will really make a difference since Google still controls that ad spot.
AdWords trumps PageRank, but understand that Google is (or rather, should be) technically outbidding the market to show that ad.
Though in many ways for them it's like taking money from their left pocket and putting it into their right pocket, so I suspect they will be able to outbid others until infinity.
True, but the question isn't whether or not they can afford it, as there's obviously very little that they can't afford, but one of whether it makes sense.
I'm assuming their bean counters have decided on an acceptable user acquisition cost, and likely won't bid above that. If, for example, they're willing to spend $1 on that spot, and somebody else is willing to give them $20 for it, I'm pretty certain they'd sell it out in a flat second.
As the vast majority of people think that the yellow boxes are to indicate the best result (including my parents who consistently click them as if they're the top result even though I've previously told them that they are ads), I'm guessing the impact won't be large.
Would Google of closed the AdWord account of a third-party over this?
[edit: for the down voter, if they would for a 3rd party, they should for themselves and remove the Ad. If they wouldn't take it away for a 3rd party, they should leave the Ad. Simple consistency]
I'm not the downvoter, but perhaps they were annoyed with "Would Google of" rather than "Would Google have." That particular error really gets on people's nerves.
60% of my interactions are with ESL or ETL engineers. Would of, could of, should of, on accident, and the like, are hallmarks of a generation holding the less well read attitude that grammar doesn't matter. The ESLs I work with thank one for a correction, incorporate it, and move on. Bad grammar is a bug. We all make them, reading clean code reduces them, and peer review helps too.
"Would of", "could of", "should of" are certainly errors when conjugating , but "on accident"? Either preposition "by" or "on" seems correct to me and the correct choice seems arbitrary -- though I find myself preferring "on".
From what I could find doing some (brief) research, this is a case in which the difference breaks down nearly perfectly along generational lines. Those ages thirty-five and under overwhelmingly prefer "on" and those younger prefer "by"[1]. Prepositional choice has always seemed a bit arbitrary to me, and the fact that there are dialectical differences reenforces that belief[2].
To suggest that this contributes to a "generation holding the less weel read attitude that grammar doesn't matter" strikes me as a bit misguided.
I chose "on accident" precisely to inject the generational notion into my comment, being well aware of its notability as an indicator of usage patterns by age.
First, in your citation 1, you have the generational aspect of "on" and "by" reversed. The original and correct[1] usage is "by accident". Acceptance by the younger generation doesn't make "on accident" correct, it is just accepted for lack of knowing otherwise. (This will, granted, eventually result it in showing up in dictionaries as a usage.)
The new generation, whether less read or less likely to have read the writings of prior generations, is less influenced by existing usage, and mistakenly verbalizes "on accident" to over-regularize with "on purpose".
"Over-regularization" is the kind of mistake a toddler makes until they learn correct usage by hearing and reading correct usages from multiple example experiences.[1] As the new generation reads less old material, and socializes textually with peers more and earlier, incorrect usages imprint to the point they gain defenders from the "everyone's doing it so don't call it wrong" camp.
I'm not making an argument ad populum and even if I were, I don't see how it holds any more weight than your argument from antiquity.
Language and grammar evolves and as far as linguistic changes go, the use of one preposition over another is pretty benign. Prepositional choice is already essentially arbitrary and varies from region to region.
English is a moving target. The current generation forming its own vernacular doesn't make in any more or less correct than when the previous generation did it. It's not as if English has its own académie française, and the flexibility of English is one of its most charming properties.
Leaving aside the condescending quip about toddlers, I don't see how over-regularization of prepositions is a bad thing. They're already confusing enough as it is and I personally would prefer a language with more consistent rules than not.
EDIT: A quick addendum: I didn't actually know this was a mistake and I appreciate having learned it anyway.
I was referencing toddlers and how that age group learns. The word toddlers is not condescending, it's simply the most appropriate word for the age group in question.
> I don't see how it holds any more weight than your argument from antiquity
The dictionary is nothing but "argument from antiquity", as would be the conventional definition of "correct usage", in contrast to the "many people doing it wrong makes it right!" definition you disavowed, skipped a graph, then repeated.
Prepositions are not "essentially arbitrary" even when used with metaphysical concepts. Particular prepositions work with particular types of concepts, and curiously, end up quite similarly used among a variety of cultures and languages. In English, for example, is the concept something you can possess, or a process that happens to you? If you consider other things that couple with "on" or "by", you'll see what I mean.
Certainly English is charming, and rapidly evolving. You've likely read Bill Bryson's "The Mother Tongue", but if not, you might enjoy it.
Is this a common ESL problem? It's based on audible similarity but I would expect non-native speakers to be exposed to comparatively more text than audio.
When people say this, I usually hear "Would Google've". It looks horrible that way, but captures the intention. I might use it orally (or in fiction dialogue), but not in writing.
I manage one of our tools engineering teams focused on making it easy for employees to quickly find the right information and keeping it up to date. But there are a number of different tools engineering teams focused on things from tools engineers use daily to how we can better support users.
You're able to apply via email if you don't wish to be logged in to the site. Each job has a unique email address such as careers+a2KA0000000LhWnMAK@facebook.com which is for tools engineering in New York.
Sorry, but this really feels like hyperbole to me. For two reasons:
1) Before any action is shared back from the site to Facebook, the user has agreed to authorize that site (application) and add it to their timeline. Part of that dialog shows what's going to happen (https://developers.facebook.com/docs/beta/authentication/).
2) There are plenty of other examples around the web where submitting a HTTP GET request results in an action. For example, clicking an up arrow on Hacker News submits a GET request which increases the karma score on another author. What becomes more important is how you protect against XSRF and crawlers not accidentally changing state within your app.
Before any action is shared back from the site to Facebook, the user has agreed to authorize that site (application)...
That sounds great in theory.
I just looked at my Facebook "App Settings" page and found two applications/sites that I had supposedly authorized to interact with my Facebook profile. I don't know what they do, and I don't recall ever deliberately granting anyone or anything, especially the two sites in question, any permission to interact with Facebook on my behalf.
The App Settings page will tell you when last you used it, and when last they accessed information (once you click on "Edit").
If you are truly concerned about this happening behind your back (rather than making a comment about how easy it is to not recall adding something), you can contact me (neilblakeymilner at fb.com) and I will try connect you with someone who might be able to help you find out when you did it and whatever other information might be attached to that event (I don't really know what, if any, we keep on that event type).
Feel free to contact me as well if you are sure that you didn't authorize them. I am not sure I can help, but I will try.
There are only a select few applications that get authorized automatically when you use them (Instant Personalization - https://www.facebook.com/instantpersonalization/), but they only get read access to some basic information that you share with "Public", and they have to follow pretty stringent guidelines in terms of how they store and use the data, and they have to show you how to opt out of the experience when you visit.
This probably is not the case with you, but sometimes people find out that some browser plugins (even ones that do useful things, not just "show who viewed your profile" types) that they are using do malicious things, or discover that their credentials were compromised due to phishing or because of a password dump when they report weird things like this (although the team I'm on do try our best to prevent both of these sorts of things).
To be fair, that doesn't mean it is their fault you allowed them to do so. It is indeed your responsibility to look at what you allow to access your profile and what you deny that access to.
When I say "I don't recall," I guess I'm using understatement in a bad place for it.
One of the sites in question was Bing. I don't use Bing.
There is no way in hell I authorized these apps. And this isn't a case where two apps from a long list seem suspicious; I've never authorized any apps, ever.
The Facebook guarantee that authorization is required has no technical enforcing measure; it's toothless bullshit.
We're trusting the greater Facebook ecosystem to uphold such policies and guarantees out of the goodness of its collective heart. Ha. Ha. We're also trusting Facebook itself to accurately list such relationships on their Apps page. I don't see why such trust is warranted, at this point.
At least in Bing's case, it may have been automatically added as part of some sort of partnership. Not that it's any less sleazy to add (and authorize) apps on your behalf without your knowledge.
> ... clicking an up arrow on Hacker News submits a GET request
For the curious, (from peeking at the source) it's a anchor tag with onclick Javascript that overrides default behavior if js is active. Before checking, I thought it might be AJAX, but it's much simpler. The script simply loads a background image with the info in the link (but doesn't add it to the DOM, so there's no reference after the function returns.
The entire relevant server communication portion:
// ping server
var ping = new Image();
ping.src = node.href; // Where node is a ref to the clicked anchor
Breaking the HTTP GET having no side effects is important for page speed up utilities. Those try to predict what you will want to click next and GET a bunch of resources behind your back in anticipation. Stuff would show up in your news feed that you never clicked.
This is precisely why those kind of page speed up tools never took off. Chrome now has a mechanism for a page author to explicitly request this behavior, but in the general case, it has never worked.
