I think you'll find a good sample of people who did poorly on their interviews but were still hired due to stellar references, corporate politics or nepotism.
It was amazing how some people lapped up everything he wrote about Google (case in point: apparently a lot of people don't believe 20% time exists at all any more), I guess because he was so prolific (it was hard for actual Googlers to keep up rebut everything), and he was playing into some confirmation bias.
The confirmation bias still exists today, too. On HN I frequently see users claim that Google sells user data, but that isn't true; user data is only used for ad personalization.
I also frequently see the claim that "Don't be evil" has been removed from Google's code of conduct, but it's still clearly visible in the document.
I hope we develop better tools to combat misinformation in the next few years, because social media is far too effective at propagating it. For every person that verifies and corrects a claim, there's ten others who will gladly repeat it. This is especially problematic when there's a bias to exploit, be it political or otherwise.
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes."
> Google sells user data, but that isn't true; user data is only used for ad personalization.
That is selling user data. It’s just got a layer of bullshit in between.
As long as Google offers ways to target ads at specific demographics, they are selling that demographic indicator about you whenever you click on one of those ads.
If your data isn't being sold, then no, they're not selling user data. That's changing the meaning of language to make it sound worse than it really is.
You might argue that this data is being leaked, but that isn't clear either. Ads work on an auction system, and there's no guarantee that a user clicking an ad meets a demographic. You'd need to make a case that user data can be accurately built from buying ads alone.
Even if you could prove that, that's _still_ different than the claim that Google is selling user data directly.
> If your data isn't being sold, then no, they're not selling user data.
That’s just phrasing to attempt to weasel out of the fact that it’s selling the ability to derive the user data. It’s effectively the same thing with a layer of indirection.
> Ads work on an auction system, and there's no guarantee that a user clicking an ad meets a demographic.
Auction system is irrelevant. Unless Google is ignoring your target demographic and keywords entirely, they are selling you a stream of traffic that matches that demographic on average.
That's not a social media problem. The claim that Google sells user data came from the traditional news Big Media outlets like the NYT and WSJ. I remember when it started actually: it happened around the time Google News launched. The narrative in the media industry became very quickly "Google is making tons of money whilst we're going through huge layoffs" and the media spin went from highly positive to very negative at dizzying speed.
A major inflection point was when Rupert Murdoch gave a speech proclaiming the iPad was the future of news and Google was some sort of parasite sucking the blood of journalists. The tone of the output from his newspapers changed overnight and they immediately started digging around for largely fake 'scandals'. The rest of the news industry didn't need much persuading and the rest is history.
Claims you see on social media since then are largely just repeating the media's talking points. It's not like it originated there.
> Google sells user data, but that isn't true; user data is only used for ad personalization.
I mean, i guess that's a lot better in principle, but it still seems like basically the same thing with an extra layer of indirection. It certainly doesn't give me warm fuzzy feelings about google.
> Google sells user data, but that isn't true; user data is only used for ad personalization.
And other companies getting referrals can’t connect the dots when they know the user clicking on the AdWords Ad and what the Ad was for?
Companies that work with big data companies run AdWords campaigns in Google for other companies, right?
Even if Google isn’t evil and does everything in the interest of privacy, if their ads, based on your preferences from your emails and browsing history, are used to direct you to some product, there is a way that other companies will learn of those preferences, store them, sell them, and use them.
Google is targeting the ads, with each targeted ad they leak personal information about the users. Advertisers only have to pay and Google tells them who's matching whatever demographic they want. On the other hand print and billboard ads don't reveal personal information to the advertisers.
Also (and keep in mind I'm just repeating the rumor) wasn't it supposedly replaced with the slogan "do the right thing"? It was something else fairly harmless.
Everyone says this about the lock up and it makes sense intuitively, but it doesn't really match the data. I saw a presentation by a major investment bank that showed that in most cases there is not a significant drop following the lock up expiration -- I'm sure there are examples either way, but this was a compelling basket.
If the effect of early employees and investors selling after the lockup is significant, it wouldn't manifest itself as a drop after the lock up, it's a known date and it would be anticipated ahead of time by other investors and traders with the stock price reflecting this.
Fair point -- I should have been more clear, this analysis was based on comparing the post-lockup price to the first trade, and also to the primary offering price (not 180 days to 179 days). You'd sometimes see a drop from the "pop" price, although not always, and it would almost never fall below the primary price.
Thank you. Anyone who looks at the numbers can see that AirBnb is not affecting housing availability in any meaningful way.
There are about 6 times more permanently vacant units in SF than the peak number of AirBnb, and the amount of construction that has been blocked during discretionary review (met the zoning requirements, people complained about parking) since AirBnb's existence far exceeds the AirBnb units too.
(I am in favor of vacancy taxes, a house being used, even by a short-term renter, is better than the blight caused by properties sitting empty)
I've both made friends and strengthened existing friendships at the blackjack table and craps table. I love gambling for its own sake, but it's still a little sad to me that so much of a casino floor is slot machines which are not social.
True, I shouldn't have put all gambling under the same umbrella. I actually really enjoy poker myself, though I tend not to bet real money, just chips with friends.
My first thought... when you realize they've been taking 96% as the gatekeepers for so long, Apple's fees don't sound as absurd. With traditional print publishing there is a lot of value add, but with ebooks they're really just choosing winners.
Aside: I have met several people who admitted to downloading my books on torrents, and they gave me the $2 I would have made if they'd bought it :)
It's sad that books don't have the equivalent of steam sales. I have so many games I'll never play, because at $2 it seems rude not to but at £30, I gotta think about it.
A few of the tech oriented publishers have ebook sales on their websites from time to time. Like Apress has $6 per ebook during black friday. Informit was 55% off per ebook book.
Yeah, and the sad part is that the paper copies royalty is different from the ebook copies. And when someone buys your book in bulk or the publisher gives away promotion copies it get counted differently.
Still waiting for hunderds of US dollars worth of royalties :(
That's hilarious. I would give you $2 to just keep writing. Sadly the technology is just not there. Everyone is busy welding the next digital prison for popular walled gardens. Building a forest of plastic plants.
Thank you for introducing me to this concept. I hadn't heard of MAP and ended up reading about it.
I had always assumed that a salesperson immediately offering me a discount, or that weird "price shown when you add to cart" pattern were just people being shady to increase conversion... while that may be true some of the time, I had no idea there was a legitimate reason why they might not tell you the "real" price upfront.
