Since I joined, Uber has been behaving very ethically. Yes, there have been problems, which are mainly with unchecked culture in some groups, but I think things have turned around for the entire company. There have been major issues with a very aggressive culture but unlike most other companies, the management is really trying to change things. We will see if any differences are really made but I'm optimistic.
All you hear about from the media is the shitty things from the past, but if you had visibility into the great things that uber does that I see every day, you would think differently. Case in point, the new exec from Apple and the Harvard business professor who both joined this week. They have complete clarity into what kind of company Uber is right now, and they both joined.
Yes, Uber has made mistakes in the past, but since 2015 I think it has really grown up. It has issues just like any other large company but unlike other companies, they have aired their dirty laundry and is at least trying to change. I have no qualms with working for Uber and i have no trouble with my ethics or morals working here.
If someone has a bigoted view on Uber or Uber employees without knowing all the facts, then I have no issues never working for or with them, because they probably have other unchecked bigoted views as well, and would probably be terrible to work with.
The lie to this statement is that all of Uber's actions to fix their problems (fire people, outside investigation, hire new HR heads) have come in response to bad PR, not an internal recognition that things weren't OK. Travis Kalanick, who was 37 years old when he sanctioned all of this behavior, is still the head of the company. I am sure many of the people who turned a blind eye when star performers were protected, or women were leaving the company in droves, are still there.
This story is a case in point: Alexander wasn't fired, even after half of the executive team knew what he did, and the legal team ordered him to destroy the documents, until Recode started asking about the incident. If the company had really "grown up" as you suggest he would have been gone before the reporters started asking about him. If the company had "grown up" then one of the many people Susan Fowler talked to (in 2016) would have sounded alarms, before she wrote her blog post about it.
> unlike other companies, they have aired their dirty laundry
It's a well known phenomenon that people tend to overestimate the extent to which their habits and behaviors are shared by others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect. A simpler explanation for the series of bad headlines attributable to Uber and not other companies is that Uber was involved in worse behavior than those other companies.
Yes, star performers were protected in the past. Not anymore. Many top performers were fired due to this recent investigation. Hopefully more are fired after the Holder report.
"Women leaving in droves" is a lie. The recent demographics report shows that, although we could do better, the female ratio is about equivalent to other tech companies. And there is a concerted effort to change our processes and training to reduce or remove unconscious bias in our hiring process to make it even better.
And powerful women are joining as well. We just had two major female execs with a huge list of accomplishments join. They know full well the company as it is today and wouldn't join if it was a piece of shit like many of you think it is.
I can't speak of the Alexander case because I know nothing of it. But it's still in that 2014 era that I was talking about. That would not fly now, and I think his firing is in line with how the company is today in 2017.
Since Susan Fowler, I think there has been a major change in company culture. Travis revealed in an allhands that he himself needs to change. He had strong opinions on what he wanted the company culture to be but he finally understood that he was wrong. He wanted a hard-driving, ultra-logical company that squeezed the best out of every single employee but rewarded them well with stock. But after seeing the unintended consequences, that it didn't work. It worked well when you have a handful of employees that love doing this, but it doesn't scale at 10,000+ employees and he finally admitted that. As well, the qualities that made him a great startup CEO do not translate to a 10,000 person company and he finally realized that in March. These are all things he admitted in the all hands, and it seems like The company is rapidly changing to becoming much more empathetic. He is giving full reins to the New SVP HR and she is doing a great job in my opinions. I really do believe that the changes will be transformational.
Travis is 40 years old, I'm really not going to believe "he's going to change" when he is still the CEO and all we've seen is that really bad PR can force him into taking small actions to mitigate it. Last week the head of HR was talking about how there's no systemic harassment and how "the biggest problem is morale" and yesterday we read that 215 different people were under investigation for harassment, and it required the involvement of an outside legal firm. Susan Fowler mentioned that Uber had investigators digging into her personal life and her past, after her blog post; it's 2017.
I think it's unethical to continue to work for a person like that, and to help them make more money. I think it's unethical to continue to work with and for people that have turned a blind eye to harassment and blatantly unethical behavior in the past, no matter what tune they are singing now. In particular one way we as employees can signal to management that their actions are unacceptable (and signal to outsiders that we find them unacceptable) is by quitting.
In particular the actions of Uber employees who have continued to stay despite clear and ongoing evidence of unethical behavior (going back to the Beyonce/ex-girlfriend stalking reports, which are several years old), signal that they'd turn a blind eye, or ignore misbehavior, at your company as well.
Thats your prerogative. I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt. After seeing him speak and seeing the changes that have started to roll out, I believe he is sincere.
215 were investigated and 20 people fired. There are ~15000 employees globally. It's not systemic and most people at Uber would agree. The outside firm was hired specifically to show that they are independent with no bias. If they didn't hire outside firm, you probably would accuse them of bias, so there's no way to win.
They were not digging up her past. They were investigating her claims. She was incorrect in assuming that Uber was "out to get her". But I understand why she is feeling that way, I would probably react the same way. But Uber was in direct communications with her lawyers when they conducted these investigations so it was a miscommunication.
Everything you think you know about Uber is based on headlines, tweets, or biased reporting. If you saw the work that Uber does behind the scenes you would have a completely different opinion. The Harvard professor said the same thing. She said she would probably have been someone who would have supported the #deleteuber campaign based on the media reports, but because she had a view on the inside, she felt completely different about it. The same goes for our new CMO from Apple.
Clearly, Uber did some things in the past that deserve the reputation that it has now. But those are largely in the past. If anyone does something equally wrong these days, they will get fired. The company is expending a lot of energy trying to be more empathic. You don't have to believe it if you don't want to, but that would be hiding your head in the sand and not wanting to seek the truth.
Nah. I'm not too concerned about what close minded people with preconceived notions have about me or my employability. I don't think any Uber employee will have problems finding jobs, regardless of what you think.
Why am I seeing all of the comments employee8000 made down-voted? Again, this is what the world does to Uber -- try to suppress all true and positive facts, and only let media's negative opinions based on 0.001% know-how of the company prevail!
In case anyone missed it, employee8000 said something like "on the behalf of Uber employees, I take great pleasure in telling Mike Isaac to fuck himself"
You often post here as if your position inside Uber gives you enough insight to exonerate the soul of that company. But how much do you really see? How high on the totem poll are you? How many small "well, that [system/data/etc] could be abused, but I trust us"-es do you live with every day?
Edit: Just realized you're the same guy that said there were scary warnings in the UI when you touched production data, but didn't have a clue if there were actually logs, if those logs got audited, and if those audits could get the C-level fired. But you were still confident enough to assess Uber as taking security seriously.
You can choose to believe the anecdotes of an Uber employee who presumably is drinking from the Kool Aid, or media reports that demonize Uber and don't report on any of the good things that have been going on.
It's easy to understand why you'd want to defend your employer and coworkers, and there's nothing wrong with doing so.
Unfortunately, you've broken the HN guidelines repeatedly while doing it. You've also used this account almost exclusively to get involved in flamewars. For those reasons I've banned this account. If you don't want to be banned on HN, you can email us at hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe you'll follow the site rules in the future.
From a moderation point of view this has nothing to do with who you happen to work for. It hurts your employer to have you defending it in such uncivil ways in public, though, so they're probably better off with this account banned, too.
Right. So I civilly answer allegations that uber employees are somehow unethical or complicit in harassment or unethical behavior, and the perpetrators of this libel are safe, and I'm the one that's banned. Got it.
You may not agree with what I wrote but I stand by everything I wrote as being respectful. Except to Mike Isaac who has an agenda against Uber with his reporting. Besides that, can you point to a single comment that was "uncivil"?
Yes, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14355444 was uncivil and we warned you about it. In my experience, users that continue to make personal attacks after we ask them not to don't have much desire to use HN as intended (which involves, among other things, being respectful to others). If we've misassessed that in your case, it should be easy enough to clear up. I explained how upthread.
Everything I wrote was civil, even the one about the slave. I didn't accuse them of anything it's just your narrowmindedness. I even had defenders on that thread. Time for a reality check, Dan.
To call my responses to Uber threads as "flame wars" is a joke. I was giving my insider view on things every single time, in the face of wildly ridiculous statements. If those constitute "flame wars" then your "power" has gone to your head.
And, uh, no, I won't be begging for an unban, that is preposterous. I was the only one giving civil and informative posts about inside Uber but I guess since anyone defending Uber is "flaming", then enjoy your echo chamber of Uber hate and misinformation.
Reposting the deleted comment for people who don't have showdead on:
> Right. So I civilly answer allegations that uber employees are somehow unethical or complicit in harassment or unethical behavior, and the perpetrators of this libel are safe, and I'm the one that's banned. Got it.
> You may not agree with what I wrote but I stand by everything I wrote as being respectful. Except to Mike Isaac who has an agenda against Uber with his reporting. Besides that, can you point to a single comment that was "uncivil"?
Reposting because frankly, there hasn't been anything uncivil. Just dang's agenda, as usual.
The account posted Also, it's my pleasure to say "fuck you, Mike Isaac" before editing that out when another user objected. That's obviously uncivil. But in this case the larger problem is that it's (more or less) a single-purpose account for getting into flamewars about Uber. That's not how this site is supposed to be used.
Edit: We'd be happy to unban you as well if you'd simply promise to be civil in the future. One of the tentacles of my "agenda" is personally unkilling your high-quality technical comments so HN readers can enjoy them. It would be nice if we could just publish them in the first place.
"But in this case the larger problem is that it's (more or less) a single-purpose account for getting into flamewars about Uber. That's not how this site is supposed to be used."
So a person cannot give opinion in a civil way, and highlight information which was not known to others?
It is "mandatory" to talk about multiple topics at HN?
How do you define "flamewars"? Just giving your opinion about a topic, discussing, debating is flamewars? Then one could say the entire world of comments on HN is flamewars, since most comments discuss and debate topics.
I believe arguing your opinion civilly, giving reasons etc,
should be okay, regardless of whether you talk of only one topic -- or have a particular opinion on one side of the debate. Most users of the site typically have some view which falls on one side on any debate. But they defend it and give their reasons civilly. Thats the whole point, isnt it?
I have read employee8000's posts and they all seem civil. Except for the one which was changed. But that particular comment was wrong, his other comments on this thread are very civil IMHO.
I use Firefox and chrome regularly. Firefox is worse by an order of magnitude but I still use it. The main issues for me are any type of video is terrible on FF vs chrome. It also feels much much slower.
But I trust it a bit more than I do chrome. I don't feel like they are storing all my data like Chrome does. Maybe that's the angle they should be pursuing.
Could be a "innocent" mistake. Analysis shows that customers in cluster A are willing to pay 20% more than customers in cluster B for a certain route, as determined by machine learning. Turns out "A" means probably female customer, at night...
I wonder if there are any safeguards in place against this. E.g. take samples of male/female, different ethnicities, etc. that you want to treat identically, and check if they pay the same on average... or put that somehow in the pricing algorithm as a constraint.
I'm sure a naive algorithm with a lot of inputs would, after optimization and without supervision, make single women in bad parts of the city at night pay more. It will probably find a lot more cases to take advantage of, like white (black) people in a neighbourhood where they are the minority and don't feel safe or comfortable. Or rides from places with high percieved crime rates (it wouldn't know the crime rates, it would just know people pay more for certain routes).
This seems like the likely answer. Of course an unchecked algorithm would come to this conclusion, the key being that the algorithm is acting "without supervision". But it seems like negligence to not be supervising these algorithms.
How confident are you that you know everything that everyone at Uber is working on?
It is understandable for this to happen if there's any kind of machine learning deciding prices, it doesn't have to be designed discrimination to exist in this form.
Didn't a recent article describe Uber's extensive internal firewalls to prevent employees knowing what's going on?
Also, if you or other Uber employees would quit over this behavior, why haven't you already quit? This is arguably less egregious than many of the reported abuses of employees.
If every Twitter accusation and perceived injustice against Uber were investigated, there wouldn't be enough time in the day for anything else.
I had an Uber ride from a driver who accused Uber of paying a lower surge rate than what the passenger was paying. I assured him this wasn't the case but he insisted it. I told him exactly what I was paying, gave him my personal cell number and told him to call me if he collected less than this amount (less the Uber %). He never called me.
A lot of people have suspicions and conspiracy theories but Uber would not be in business if it did things like this. Most of the Uber employees believe strongly in what the company is doing, around the world, and exploiting women by charging them higher fees is not something we would tolerate. That's not how a sustainable company makes money.
Personally, I agree and we will have to wait and see what happens ultimately.
Amazon tried this a few years ago, and I believe they stopped doing this but I'm not sure. But if I knew or suspected that Amazon was trying to squeeze a few percent from me, it would make me less inclined to use them. I can't see how this isn't the case with Uber as well, if customers suspect they are being gouged. It would then open the doors for vast accusations like the twitter post.
I'd also point out that swaths of people probably already have left Uber and tons of other companies for unethical practices.
You just don't notice because they get replaced, and the new people assume that existing practices are the norm. The world keeps spinning.
I guess my point is, if you don't see many people leaving at once, that isn't evidence there isn't something fishy going on. People have families, mortgages, children's tuition payments...
where is the evidence? OP didn't bother even posting a screenshot...
This is just part of the FUD war going between old and new (taxi companies vs uber; old media portraying youtubers as far right extremists over a silly one-liner joke, retarded left-wing politicians taking selfies sitting on the floor of a private company train with dozens of empty seats around).
best solution is not to get caught in the middle, but rather to sit down with a pack of peanuts and enjoy the show. the whole thing is actually really really funny as long as you now what it all is.
I find it hilarious you're trying to take the moral high ground in THIS particular case, which could be just chalked up as good business sense, and not in any of the immoral things they have actually done like stealing intellectual property via a shell company or sexual harassment in the workplace. All it really shows is your lack of economic understanding.
Businesses price discriminate. Against different bands of customers, perhaps by race, income, zip code or gender. It happens. It's smart. It's profit-maximizing. It's amoral. There's nothing inherently bad about it.
So what if a band of customers is being charged higher? What if they are actually willing to pay more? Why leave the surplus on the table? Are they satisfied with the service?
Look, I'm about as far as you can get from a free market Randroid, but this is just basic microeconomics.
Incredibly ignorant statement. In many parts of Asia, including South Asia, having live in servants is very common. Philippines and Indonesia are just two examples.
It's only hacker news, don't get so worked up. People are allowed to disagree with you regardless of what you feel your best intentions are. Why do you care what anonymous internet people think?
But I do agree with media bias. The main case was "Injunction". Not a case against Anthony. "Actual case" was Waymo seeking protection for what they claim 121 trade secrets and hence prevent Uber from dong self driving tests.
Specifically on that Judge ruled following
“General approaches dictated by well-known principles of physics, however, are not “secret,” since they consist essentially of general engineering principles that are simply part of the intellectual equipment of technical employees,”
This clearly shows that Judge believed Waymo over-reached when asking for injuction.
Journalists dont find it saucy. So they are just quoting the parts about Anthony downloading files and skipping the above excerpt.
This. Make some company out to be the boogeyman du jour, then tell that lie often enough until most people believe it and it has spread all the way around the world with no chance of the truth catching up. It's bullshit, and I'm amazed that so many HNers that typically express healthy skepticism fall for it.
While I agree there is a bias in the media regarding Uber, that didn't form in a vacuum. There have been numerous fairly bad missteps from the company. I think it's less a case of the media steering the public as is is the media conforming to public opinion in some cases and showing the public what it expects, since the public is getting a fairly bad impression of Uber, and that's not entirely because of how the media has presented the stories.
Selectively quoting only stuff about Engineer and not quoting anything on actual injunction (which is a win for uber) seems like steering towards a negative narrative against Uber.
Again we can dislike Uber's policies etc. But journalist also needs to lay out facts as they are. Not actually try to steer the argument in one direction.
> Selectively quoting only stuff about Engineer and not quoting anything on actual injunction (which is a win for uber) seems like steering towards a negative narrative against Uber.
In my opinion, calling any of this a win for Uber is a bit of a stretch. If there were no court case, Uber would be entirely unrestricted. Waymo asked for a lot of restrictions, and was granted relatively little. That's better than it could have been for Uber, but still not as good as no injunctions. It's a "win" in the same way that if someone mugged me and only took my inexpensive watch instead of my wallet and smartphone I would have "won". Sure, it could have been worse, but calling it a win seems odd to me. It only makes sense when you narrow your scope to the battle, instead of the war, and to my eyes puts it in the realm of propaganda. I much prefer "good for Uber" or "bad for Uber" or "better than widely expected".
That said, it doesn't change my earlier point at all. If at this point the public is very receptive to and feeds off more evidence of Uber's wrongdoing, then playing to that by the media is to be expected (if still to be condemned). Uber, because of its entire business model is based on disruption that different people see as extremely positive or extremely negative, likely never had a chance at being represented in an unbiased way. In the beginning, that bias probably went both ways. As time has gone on, there's been more negative news to feed to the the thresher than positive, and at this point it's a feedback loop.
> Guess that's not my idea of freedom. Freedom to me is what I can actually do, not what the government won't stop me from doing.
Isn't that the good ol' BSD versus GPL discussion? Gun restriction versus gun liberty? The socialism versus libertarianism discussion? One's in favour of an enforceable mechanism (by law) which restricts the freedom of a person (or their behaviour) so that the freedom of all is ensured whereas the other one is some kind of "let the survival of the fittest" figure it out.
I know a couple of people that work at Juicero and unlike 99% of you I've actually tried the juices. To call it a scam is harsh. There are legitimate concerns with supply chain, what foods can be mixed together because of acidity and preservation, etc. I've tried a bunch of the juices, and I didn't like many of them but I could see how people who were into the green juice would find it appealing. The pomegranate was really delicious however but The yield was really low. I don't think that's one you could just squeeze with your hands. I think they should have done a blind taste test to see if the press actually had any value over hand squeezing because some of the ingredients would be harder to squeeze.
The price used to be higher for the press, I think it was $700-800 which I thought was ridiculous. I even made the point that they could replace the press with two books and someone standing on it. The wifi connectivity was dumb and you really have to be dumb to think that was useful. The drm and "checking" of the packets was a little more than an excuse to not squeeze anything more than their own packets.
But the juice itself is definitely something that is superior if you're into that juice. I heard a ton of celebrities love it, but you can't sustain a business with just celebrities. As with most things like this, I doubt they care as much about the press as the subscription to the juice packets. Personally I think they should embrace this and come up with a line of juice packets that are hand squeezable.
But they could have made a product which squeezes juice in precisely the same way but let you fill up with your own choice of chopped vegetables. They could have made a product which didn't have unnecessary WiFi connectivity and didn't only work with proprietary sealed packets that cost $5 for a glass of juice, when you can buy it ready made in bottles for the same price.
I'd think it was the printer ink model of revenue generation, but given that they're charging so much for the "Press" in the first place it becomes unacceptably offensive.
Plus you know all the wellness bloggers with enough money to advocate this kind of thing will at some point find an issue with the pre-packed selection, so if they want to court that market it's surely better to let them make their own mixtures, then they can put as much of this week's fashionable superfood berry in it as they want.
Lol $5 per glass? More like $10. But if you went to some of the juice bars it would cost $15. So the advantage would be having it in your own home with no mess.
Don't mistake me for a champion of this product. I think largely it's an unsustainable idea, but that doesn't mean the company is a scam. They are doing honest work there and they do believe that green juices are healthier for everyone. I think it's still too expensive and too specialized. They initially only wanted to do green juices which tasted like mud or grass to me. Only after they branched into fruits like pomegranate did I think the taste was better.
The difference with the packets are that you don't need to do it yourself, buy the ingredients every day, and make a mess. Also if you don't chop the veggies in a precise and consistent size, I'm sure you could damage the press.
The packets are completely fresh with no preservatives so it's not something that's easy to achieve on its own. There are issues with mixing different foods together and how fresh they last due to acidity etc so you can't just mix them together and expect them to last a week.
I'd like to do a pepsi challenge with a freshly squeezed juicero juice vs one that was pre-squeezed before packaging (i.e. the juicing machine is pointless)
Nothing is really wrong per se with a $700 luxury juice product. And I'm sure the juice is fantastic. But a $700 juicer is like a $700 Swaine Adeney Brigg umbrella. The difference is that Swaine Adeney Brigg realizes that it's a niche vendor for a small market and doesn't raise $120 million to become The Next Big Thing.
A $700 juicer that you could use with your own ingredients would not be a problem (In fact I'm sure there are plenty of $700+ juicers on the market already[0]). A $700 juicer that can only use ingredients from one company (and only if they let you) and that gives you zero control over the content of the juice is a just dumb. If I was the sort of person that considered $700 reasonable for a juicer, I would absolutely also be the sort of person who would want to experiment with different juice ingredients and ratios.
[0]I know several people who own Vitamixes and only use them for juice/smoothies, and they cost more than $700.
"Personally I think they should embrace this and come up with a line of juice packets that are hand squeezable."
DING DING DING.
This was exactly my first reaction when this broke.
Companies also need to realize - You are guilty until proven otherwise. The internet masses may forget but they don't change their mind. So if you're going to say anything. Either apologize or run with the meme.
The founder made millions making and selling cold press juice bars on the east coast. This is just taking that idea and "bringing it to the masses". Calling it a scam is ignorant. I've heard of dumber ideas with less successful founders getting more money.
What functional differences are there between a squeezable packet and a bottle? Is there any reason these couldn't just be sold as juice bottles at Whole Foods?
If they didn't care about the press they'd not be charging $400 for it. There's not much added value here, it's a diced produce distribution system that tries to convince their customers it's a lifestyle thing.
At google, I was given some code that manipulated some bits and the interviewer, in inexplicably terrible English, kept asking me what the purpose of this code was for. He has a very thick Eastern European accent which was not understandable and I don't know how he was able to get into interviews. I could tell it was doing some sort of overflow detection but other than that I had no idea. I hadn't done anything with bits since college. He kept insisting that I keep trying to understand what the code was doing even though it was obvious I had no idea. After a 40 min, excruciatingly awkward conversation we moved onto his next question which I also couldn't understand due to his terrible English. What a complete waste of time.
Thick accidents and borderline language proficiency is even worse on phone screens, where interviewers always seem to sound like they are talking through a sheet of plastic placed over the phone. I've lost count of the number of times I've had to get someone to repeat their question over and over and over on (not Google) phone screens. Once did a phone screen with an exec who I'm pretty certain was conducting it from his handsfree in an open-top convertible car (clearly heard traffic noise). I've always wondered how many opportunities I've missed out on due to poor audio quality.
I have a very hard time with accents. I've done a couple of phone interviews where I hardly understood a single thing the candidate said. In those cases I usually write my question verbatim in the shared document and focus on the code the candidate produces. It has probably hurt the chances of at least one or two interviewees.
No offense, but then the job probably was not right for you (which does not mean that you would not excel at other roles, of course). It then seems that the interview might have served is purpose just fine and saved both you and Google from being cast into an unfitting position.
I really wouldn't make that conclusion until you knew what job he was interviewing for. Firmware development? Sure, you might be right. iOS developer? Unlikely that low level bit manipulation is going to be a good indicator of his ability to succeed in that role. That's not to say its irrelevant, but, just not a quality indicator for that role in my opinion.
Maybe Google hires firmware developers, but I think they don't hire iOS developers. They hire "software engineers", and throw problems at them. (Or rather, these generic software engineers migrate toward problems that interest them in the long run.)
It prevents Google from having, say, more "iOS developers" than they need when they decide to concentrate on other products. We may debate the merit of this strategy, but as long as Google keeps this strategy, it makes sense to hire engineers who are willing to say "Well I haven't touched bits for a decade but let's see what we can do with them."
This isn't really disagreeing with you, but I was contacted by them specifically for my iOS development experience. They have several iOS apps, and they do have a demand for that type of work.
However, everything I was tested on was general SWE data and algorithmic questions. I never once got asked about anything iOS related at all. I remember one was a Google Voice question specifically, and another was a really strange converting 3D to 2D graphics conversion algorithm question that I'm still not quite sure how to tackle, and another was like reversing the bits in an image, I think, and I don't really remember the others anymore.
Also, if you go in for iOS, do not whiteboard in Objective-C or you will have a really bad time. I kept running out of space on the whiteboard because of its ridiculously long method names.
I've never chosen to interview with Google but I have been approached by Google recruiters on multiple occasions for iOS development. To say that they don't have a need for iOS engineers, is clearly erroneous. Google has a number of iOS apps.
Just to name a few: YouTube. Gmail. Hangouts. Calendar.
Regarding your interview experience - This is precisely why I turn down every interview request from Google. If you're contacting me about iOS dev experience, question me about that domain. I find the algorithm / data structures questions to be fitting for an entry level hire, fresh out of college.
There is always going to a problem that you haven't done before or haven't done for a long time.
If I was the interviewer and someone was honest about not knowing about biwise operatoons but was able to ask the right questions to gain some understanding I'd be impressed.
But don't you think you could have prepared better? Understanding code others have written is important and in my opinion asking about bits is not unreasonable.
Since I joined, Uber has been behaving very ethically. Yes, there have been problems, which are mainly with unchecked culture in some groups, but I think things have turned around for the entire company. There have been major issues with a very aggressive culture but unlike most other companies, the management is really trying to change things. We will see if any differences are really made but I'm optimistic.
All you hear about from the media is the shitty things from the past, but if you had visibility into the great things that uber does that I see every day, you would think differently. Case in point, the new exec from Apple and the Harvard business professor who both joined this week. They have complete clarity into what kind of company Uber is right now, and they both joined.
Yes, Uber has made mistakes in the past, but since 2015 I think it has really grown up. It has issues just like any other large company but unlike other companies, they have aired their dirty laundry and is at least trying to change. I have no qualms with working for Uber and i have no trouble with my ethics or morals working here.
If someone has a bigoted view on Uber or Uber employees without knowing all the facts, then I have no issues never working for or with them, because they probably have other unchecked bigoted views as well, and would probably be terrible to work with.