PatrickAuld's comments

> “We will continue to fight to protect our members’ ability to control the information they make available on LinkedIn.”

LinkedIn has full control over this, it's their site. What they are fighting for is the ability to choose who gets public access to various pieces of information; which its member do not get control over.

The GCE Over Quota page is perfect.

I think they just didn't think I was a fit, which I take as a complement. I could have played the part better but I went through the interview like any other and actually said at some point that "I don't like disruption was a core business practice".

Having sat through it (but not having experience in law) I don't believe it would.

I'm sure the interviewer and the rest of Uber would say they didn't break the law; only that they enabled and took maybe encouraged others to.

All they asked me for was a similar experience, not if I had broken the law. The example and question were based on their Core Value of 'Persistent Confrontation' which basically was spun to mean 'don't stop if you know you're right' but I took actually meant 'don't reevaluate your position in the face of new information'.

I'm being somewhat vague on purpose; some level of NDA got signed and my username doesn't exactly keep me anonymous.

Culture comes from the top and Uber's is pretty rotten.

I did an interview there this year and it was the most aggressive questioning I've ever had. Two of 5 interviewers were really in my face while architecting systems; it was bizarre and I almost walked out. Nothing compared to the 'cultural' interview where there gave me an example of them knowingly breaking the law because "they knew they were right" and then asked if I had a similar work experience I could describe. I told them I have never knowingly or even likely unknowingly broken the law at a job.

I was trying to use them to counter offer another company but in the end they never returned my calls or contacted me to say if I got the job or not.

You can calculate lots of interesting things about a face based on this. Including generating a face that people will remember very well because of unique features or one that is hard to recognize.

The optimizations our minds have found for such complex tasks are amazing.

It's important to remember what you are trying to do when you are being accommodating. You want to help others help themselves so that they are more capable in the end.

The author here took 100% of the work and pains from those around him. The people he helped were relieved of that task but are no more prepared for it should it arise again.

Personally I do try and be accommodating to those around me; but I include them in what is being done so they can learn from it. This give them back more than just result of the task and enables them to hopefully accomplish it themselves next time.

If you put "It was/is obvious" in a patent application, regardless if it involves hyperspace or not, the USPO should reject it outright.

Definitely possible, Apple uses vendors in a way that would be difficult to do themselves. However, if I'm right about the types of jobs this will create it does fall in line with Apple's expertise more than a human built process. Just as they are building their own silicon they may want to own pieces of build process.

I think "Advanced Manufacturing Jobs" are going to be roboticist, machine learning and mechanical engineer related. Foxconn is moving this direction and I'm betting Apple thinks they can do it as well as them. Plus possible tax breaks based on Trump's comments.

We also did a POC with PhantomJS and found similar issues, as well as generally flakiness causing too many false negatives. Ended up not using it; I'm hoping this can simplify things are give something more solid to build on.