Direct link to her talk:
https://youtu.be/j_K1YoMHpbk?t=2h38m40s
1,162 karma · joined May 4, 2013
[1] http://www.geekwire.com/2011/amazons-bezos-innovation/
Any time you do something big, that’s disruptive — Kindle, AWS — there will be critics. And there will be at least two kinds of critics. There will be well-meaning critics who genuinely misunderstand what you are doing or genuinely have a different opinion. And there will be the self-interested critics that have a vested interest in not liking what you are doing and they will have reason to misunderstand. And you have to be willing to ignore both types of critics. You listen to them, because you want to see, always testing, is it possible they are right?
Sure, interviewers themselves are inconsistent (accents, prejudice, interview difficulty, etc), but that's not something that can be fully mitigated when every candidate gets a different set of interviewers.
Again, I'm not defending the practice and would just like to have a constructive discussion.
To be clear, I can see why big companies prefer coding interviews (it's more "consistent" when interview feedbacks are boiled down to a score), but at the same time I'm not defending it because like many have said it's not a great measure of an engineer's capability. I'm looking at the problem from the employers' point of view.
Well, how about recommended posts / people to follow (ML)? Sponsored posts with a buy button (3rd part integration)? Growth and metrics (data analytics)? A software product is never just about pixels on the screen; and trivializing the engineering effort behind it is insulting to Twitter employees, some of whom are brilliant engineers I know.
I wish people would stop claiming how they could clone a social media app in an afternoon / weekend.
Google doesn't own Udacity.
Exactly how does a company that makes money through selling you products have its interests more aligned to yours?
"Evil" such as serving you ads?
> Google's product is your private info.
Better ads targeting using your private info - not selling your private info to advertisers/governments. It's evident how much you distrust Google, but don't spread and allude to FUD.
A large majority of users [1] take photos with their phones, upload a select few on social media, maybe with some basic filters/edits, and forget about the rest.
Google Photos is designed for that use case, and not for the 1% power users.
[1] No data to back this up, just my two cents.
Other projects in this space include Android One and Loon.
- You get mobile E-commerce websites with usability disasters during checkout.
User satisfaction not only depends on getting a relevant answer, but also how an answer is presented. Their degree of importance is where the weights come in.
[1] Otherwise, why would anyone build mobile-friendly websites in the first place?
One minor algorithm change can (and has) wiped out the fortunes of thousands of companies.