Intent is the key to the good faith exception here.
If you intend to kick down a door to find evidence of wrongdoing, anything you find is inadmissible. But if you kick down a door because someone on the other side is screaming for help, evidence of other wrongdoing that you find is admissible still.
Here, they are saying that they had good reason to believe they could operate in the way that they did, so while the geofence evidence itself isn't able to be used, other evidence derived from that work is still usable. But going forwards, no one can use the geofence technique in good faith.
Bear in mind that physical cash is somehow able to be charged with crimes, thus enabling police theft via civil asset forfeiture. Even when the police had no reason to suspect there was any cash on people in the first place.
So it doesn't seem like much of a step to "the evidence was screaming to us from inside, begging to be found". It's about the same level of nonsense. ;)
Civil asset forfeiture is problematic and has been abused but it's completely separate from criminal evidence rules. The physical cash is never charged with a crime. Instead the government files a civil (not criminal) case alleging that the cash is the result of criminal activity. The burden of proof then is much lower than in a criminal trial, and often the plaintiff wins a default judgement.
And intent is notoriously hard to prove. As long as there isn't an email saying "fuck the laws break it down" good luck proving the cops were the bad guy and every judge will side with them all day long. "Ope, another clerical error, Joe Admin Assistant screwed it up, we were just following orders."
This isn't true, nor is it how the US courts work. Prosecutors have to prove that their evidence is admissible and it can definitely be challenged easily by the defence. The police need to prove probable cause to enter in cases like this.
If “I thought they had a gun” is a free pass for cops to murder why won’t cops simply say “I thought I heard a cry for help” when they kick a door down without a warrant?
It's crazy to me how much of large business revenue comes from ads. Just under one third of their revenue is from advertising!
Is this a recent shift, or one that I'm just now noticing? Other large tech companies have had substantial increases in ad revenue as well: notably amazon and uber. Is advertising shifting away from Google, or is this just a normal part of large businesses (like paying for placement in retail stores)?
Marketplaces are very keenly positioned for advertising as there is deep buyer intent. Amazon[0] looks to have a pretty sizable ad business. I have anecdotally observed that this is a recent trend related to the downturn. Of course, ads have always been very prevalent but as companies saw contraction they scrambled to plug revenue with ads. Netflix being an example that recanted its long held "no ads" policy. Apple's advertising business has grown substantially as well. For marketplaces, ads are a logical (if annoying) way to make money and that trend is unlikely to reverse.
There's always been tons of money in marketing and advertising. Top brand companies have huge marketing budgets. Think coca cola, all super bowl ads etc.
it's just you had to settle for inferior means of attribution. it got better with tech via e-commerce and tracking. then it got worse with tech via bots, abuse, arms race, etc.
instacart can reach customers at the point of sale and track conversions in a first class manner. so it's a no-brainer for brands to pay for performance.
Our unit economics are strong for all businesses, so we don't anticipate ever having to do something like this.
Banking is our primary focus, not an add-on feature, and we invest significantly on the product teams that enable strong unit economics in banking for the long run, like partner integrations, support experience, and onboarding/risk.
Hey abofh! I lead the engineering team responsible for payments at Mercury. We're definitely looking at adding better and faster payment rails in the future, but I think that your scheduled ACHs should go out in the first ACH window right now. It's possible that your receiving bank isn't posting them until later in the day, but we send those first thing in the morning when pre-scheduled. If you want to email me, I'm happy to double check that for you. jake at mercury dot com
What about reforming existing engineers? Especially ones that have gone down the operations path for several years and want to get back to contributing with code?
Edit: I was asking kind of flippantly, but actually upon reading your team and product seems quite interesting. Would you be up for a chat?
My company is hiring frontend engineers (React/Typescript stack), but we do have a technical coding interview. What exactly do you mean by "coding exams"? We have a ~2 hour, synchronous technical challenge that all of our engineers go through (as well as screening questions before that point). No leetcode style problems, no take-home tests though.
I've thought about this problem a lot too. In my mind, there is no "Adult rec league for eSports" that exists right now. I can go to my local rec center and sign up for adult soccer, football, volleyball to meet people and play for fun in a lightly competitive environment, but no one has done that for eSports yet.
I like the idea of booting up old games in that format as well.
It's definitely a hard problem, but with the increase in recreation time, especially for creative workers, that we're continuing to see I think it could be a big company.
As someone who used to work at Gusto:
Two separate opt-ins are required - one from the employer for adding Truework to their account, one from the employee to share the information for every request.
Didn't they just copy the MtG model on cycling content for competitions? I could be wrong but I thought it was almost exactly what Wizards of the Coast starting doing in the early days of Magic.
Quite possibly. I'm not familiar enough with MtG to say. But it keeps the game fresh, while conveniently (for Blizzard) also ensuring the fans keep paying.
If you intend to kick down a door to find evidence of wrongdoing, anything you find is inadmissible. But if you kick down a door because someone on the other side is screaming for help, evidence of other wrongdoing that you find is admissible still.
Here, they are saying that they had good reason to believe they could operate in the way that they did, so while the geofence evidence itself isn't able to be used, other evidence derived from that work is still usable. But going forwards, no one can use the geofence technique in good faith.