B-Con

This is the correct answer. The interviewer is only the to gather data, the hiring committee makes the decision and they need concrete days to look at. "Take my word for it" doesn't fly as an interviewer.

I'll second this.

Neither side really instances the other side and many buy into the headline narrative that the other half aee basically all extremist nutjobs.

"Official" is mostly about who they consider the customers of the product when making a decision.

If the project is officially open-sourced, that will be taken into consideration when project priorities, re-orgs, and direction occur at higher levels. "How does this effect our commitment to the community" is a question to address. If it isn't official, then is best-effort by the people who pushed for it to go open-source.

This made me both chuckle and cringe a bit. Well put.

The word you're looking for... My spouse suggested something related to trauma or PTSD. Then I saw "flashback" suggested.[0]

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/508877/is-there-...

I wonder what an active user is defined as for Twitter.

Tweeted?

Scrolled through their timeline?

Read an embedded tweet on a news site?

Dismissed a mobile notification?

For a platform like Twitter (or Facebook for that matter) it seems relatively easy to game the numbers.

> If it makes economic sense for you to pay me $100k, making that conditional on where I live is just a jerk move.

If you can buy a product for $50 from one site and that's worth it to you but you can buy it for $35 from another site...

What was written is literally an argument for not trying to minimize expenditures. But it makes economic sense to minimize expenditures, that's business 101.

"Objective value" doesn't exist. Not only is it hard to determine because information is generally far from perfect, but the only thing that matters to actual people in the actual world is relative value (aka, incremental value).

That is to say: All decisions in life are about choosing your best option. Hiring is no different.

> 1) just confirm that there are mechanisms by which he could have be not allowed to check in the code

If that's what you read out of the post, when I literally said the opposite, I can't reason with you.

Considering that it's a DRM module, it's not a surprise. I believe anyone with a DRM module that does not protect it is at risk of losing their license with the content owners. That basically why DRM exists to begin with.

Blaming the content service is easy since they're user-facing, but it's shallow. Content-related restrictions are, in my experience, almost always dictated by the content owner. Region locks, availability windows, use of DRM, DMCAs for anti-DRM, etc, are all at the requirement of the content owners.

I don't think these modern Internet-based service providers care about that stuff much, they have little incentive to. It's driven by contracts.

Incidentally, this is always the reason behind region locks. Service X or content Y isn't available in your country? Don't blame the streaming service, blame the content owner.

As I said above, the literal interpretation flat out wrong. There is no mechanism that exists now nor in the past to make the statement literally true as written.

I don't know how they managed to get that statement, but it's misleading. Many misconceptions begin with an element of truth. I'm guessing the element of truth here was the "certification" process. (Maybe it was something else, like a mixup having him as an advisor accidentally caused him to not be hired into the engineering group and thus there was a wait before he got engineering credentials to view/edit code. But that kind of thing is just silly paperwork and clearly fixed promptly.)

I just checked. He had literally written some C++ code before that snippet was published.

It was not the absurd statement it's been made out to be. It sounds unbelievable for a reason: It is unbelievable because it didn't happen.

For a lot of the official content, yeah, that sounds right. But for the "unofficial" content? Absolutely, they were already arguably the largest music streaming sure to begin with, do they back fitted themselves into a proper streaming service.

I saw the writing on the wall years ago. There was just no way execs wouldn't leverage such an obvious opportunity.

As a Googler, that statement is just wrong. They were looking for a fun story and somehow got just the right quote to make one.

Code committed to the internal repo requires a review from someone certified familiar with that language's internal style guide.

He was hired to work on Go, not C, and just didn't get around to writing enough C to bother getting that certification. He can write C whenever he wants to, just like literally every other engineer, he would just get a style guide review at review time.

I think it's because C++ serves a wide set of users across a wide set of paradigms. I doubt every C++ dev is enthusiastically using every feature.

"pasta" is a meme replacement of "paste" is there copy/paste context. It's relatively popular, albeit uncommon on HN.

Pretty sure I first heard about them pulling these tactics over 10 years ago. Sad it's still ongoing.

IIRC, after Godaddy blew up with their Superbowl commercial they've been ratcheting up the scam factor in every way possible. Just avoid them completely.

It is. This is how I would've written it.

CA won't implode soon. But momentum is hard to change and right now the industry is looking for a ways to not be in CA. It hasn't panned out yet, but once they are unlocked and can leave the region there will be a river of people leaving. Let that run for a decade and then there will be trouble.

If (and that's a big if) the current trend allows CA workers to work remotely from non-CA, I think SV will be a very different place in 15 years. A place not on the trajectory of the last 15.

> The biggest loser, he predicted, would be California.

California had been downtown hostile to the tech industry and grown complacent work the status quo because the tech workers had to be there. If tech workers don't have to be there, they will start trickling out.

CA worked hard to make the bed they're about to lie in.

They decided they didn't benefit from certain job positions and did benefit by buying another company.

What's the alternative action for them to take?

Allo and Duo were complimentary apps, their simultaneous release was necessary and had nothing to do with their adaption rate.

More broadly, it seems like a better cultural fit.

The best experience from IG's POV.

It wasn't suspended over the one, that was just the signal that they were doomed.

The alternative was to wait a few weeks until a large fraction of the teams had incomplete rosters, owners and fans were furious at the asymmetrical competition, and there was social/legal pressure to stop sponsoring events drawing large crowds into social proximity, and then cancel.

They knew that was coming and it's better to pull the plug early.

If you're qualified to work for a team that's hiring, transfers are pretty easy. I work for GOOG outside CA and know a lot of coworkers who transferred teams within the company from out of state. Lateral mobility is something of a perk.

I've noticed the elevator disorientation too. I'm one with a built-in compass and the times that my expectations are diverted are rare and quickly corrected. Because of my natural outlook, it's odd to me to see people often step out of an elevator and have to recalibrate their orientation.

Even if it does, that's way overnight on the article. A few 50KB here and there aren't your problem if you're blowing past a 250Gb or 1TB data cap.

Tools don't exist in a vacuum. When a tool is a closed platform driven by a business, that business is going to heavy-handidly steer how the tool is used.

> If email worked this way, the whole thing would collapse, because much of the time, you really do want to receive messages from new people.

Of course. But Facebook isn't e-mail. A closed system that thrives on heavily weighted social graphs is just nothing like an open standard for arbitrary message exchange.

> Wrong, it's designed to help people get in contact with each other.

Based on what? Have you used Facebook? Everything they do is about building and establishing communities, that's their business and they know it. They do almost nothing to help strangers communicate one-off. We are literally in the middle of a discussion about how Facebook gives low priority to messages from strangers, which is evidence that they have this mentality.

There's a lot of context you had to make up to arrive at that interpretation for the first hand account you read.

In 99.9% of cases you don't. It's mostly spam.

Facebook is a friend platform, not a stranger platform. Don't use it to message strangers, it's very explicitly not what the platform is designed for.

Not a good analogy because the people who hypothetically can best the market have incredible incentive to not share the details.