Yes, this is what happened. Though only a portion of the team related to Talent was furloughed, not the whole team. It is still an active product, but sales has taken a big hit related to the downturn of the overall hiring environment due to Covid19.
Best not to advertise compatibility with everything unless you are sure that it really is compatible with everything. Otherwise it is too easy to mislead people (who will load the site, check for their favorite language, not see it and never come back)
> You have my telephone number connecting with your telephone number. There are no names. There is no content in that database...At no point is any content revealed because there’s no content that...the FBI — if, in fact, it now wants to get content; if, in fact, it wants to start tapping that phone
> If I target for example an email address, for example under FAA 702, and that email address sent something to you, Joe America, the analyst gets it. All of it. IPs, raw data, content, headers, attachments, everything.
Notice how Obama only talks about the phone metadata DB, and a process for getting data from companies about "non-US persons" (Google, etc) based on "essentially a warrant" (not the same thing as a warrant, though). Snowden's allegations are starting to become much wider than the original Verizon DB and PRISM systems. And I don't think that we are going to see Obama address them and deny them directly any time soon.
The quotes you have highlighted are discussing two different things.
Obama is referring to the phone metadata database.
Snowden is referring to what an analyst sees after an email address is targeted, meaning that an active surveillance process has been started for that specific email address and that the email provider has begun to provide access.
So of course these two statements are different, because they are talking about different things. The operative phrase in Snowden's statement is "If I target", which should be read as "after I start data collection for an email address...".
> The head of the National Security Agency hinted yesterday that logs of Americans' e-mail and Web site visits may be secretly vacuumed up by the world's most powerful intelligence agency
Sounds like they have zeroed in on the audit trail of what Snowden was able to access and/or what he has already given to Greenwald or the Washington Post. Some pre-damage control going on here.
> disclosing details about such surveillance would cause "our country to lose some sort of protection."
The people who they would be surveilling really wouldn't have suspected this capability already?
Especially after the NYT's disclosures in December 2005, which included mention of email. And an earlier disclosure by a U.S. politician (this is from memory) about intercepting Al Qaeda satellite phone calls, which was probably a disclosure that was actually damaging.
Sometimes claiming, without proof, that revelations will "hurt America" is simply a way to justify secrecy.
> the company hints that hashtags “are just the first step” in a series of features that will bring conversations about public events, people, and topics on the social network to “the forefront of people’s Facebook experience.
So in other words, FB is making it clear that they are going to continue to try to play catch-up to Twitter and G+?
"Destruction of the Web"? This is really going to destroy the web? Though it is an issue, I hardly think that this is going to destroy anything. May inconvenience some things, cause confusion about when to link (and when to unlink) in the short term until an equilibrium is reached and the next SEO change comes along. But I think that this title itself is Link Bait (something else that might be "destroying the web" by this lose definition of destruction).
The author has a history of being very hyperbolic. I was hoping at least one other person would catch this and not take the article at face value. Spam is a problem, not the destruction of the web.
