111 karma · joined October 27, 2013
I more wanted to emphasize my view as a bystander at a very hectic point of their growth, not actually complain about the experience. It was an interesting experience to me, not a negative one.
I have no hard feelings about it and I'm sure things got sorted out. I certainly have no negative views of any individual I dealt with.
The real issue was how chaotic the process was. I had started out talking to an engineer that had picked up my application, but was handed off to recruiter only after the homework portion was done (said recruiter even mentioned that they had just been hired). The two technical phone screens also were two discrete steps (i.e. the second was only scheduled after the success of the first).
That was really the issue: neither I nor them knew how many more steps there were. It wasn't helped by having long periods of radio silence between each step either. But it was painfully obvious that they were scrambling to figure out how to scale their processes, so much so that it still stands out to me 6+ years later.
I was still in college at the time but I maybe spent 5-10 hours over the course of a week or so. I do remember it took a very long time for them to respond after I had sent it in though. I believe the project was to implement a basic web crawler in Go.
> Now yes I do understand programming is not the same but my point still stands why so many chefs in the kitchen?
After the homework problem I think that's where they were defining the process as they went. They seemed to be growing quite a bit at the time (IIRC when I was onsite they had just rented two more floors of office space) and I had bounced between a few contacts that were brand new to the company. The real struggle is that I never knew how many more steps were to come, and I'm not sure they knew either.
Though after the onsite they e-mailed me almost immediately to setup the call with Ben so I think everything had gone well up to that point. I don't think the call with Ben went poorly so my best guess is that they went with someone that had experience rather than a new grad.
FWIW I'm not actually bitter about this. I just found it to be an interesting snapshot of a particularly chaotic point in the company's history.
1. initial call with recruiter
2. homework project
3. call with engineer to discuss said homework project
4. two phone screens with engineers
5. onsite interview with 6 engineers
Finally I had was at the final step which was a call with Ben who was really interesting to talking to as we shared the sysadmin background.They we going through some pretty crazy growth at the time so I forgave a lot of disorganization in the interview process. Unfortunately I didn't end up getting the role but I'm glad to have had that experience; it was definitely an interesting point in DigitalOcean's history.
1) Their experience trying to rent a unit. 2) Their outline of the scam.
I'm going to take all of (1) as facts, albeit it's only one side of the story. So maybe parts are missing and it might be biased, but I'll assume the core points are true.
(2) is where things become less factual. A large part of their support for it being a scam comes from two parts: it could be profitable, and it appears they didn't sell any units that week. The problem is just because a scam is profitable doesn't mean it actually took place. If I get shorted change at the deli I can't call it scam simply because it was profitable for them to short me. I would need to show that the problem is systemic to prove that.
The other supporting evidence was that they didn't rent any units that week. The problem is that they don't actually know that. Maybe the website inventory is stale? Maybe they just happened to not lease any units that week or they're still pending lease signing.
So I would say they absolutely got rejected for an apartment due to the report from CoreLogic. Everything beyond that is unsubstantiated and merely circumstantial.
I think the author, if they feel strongly about this, should reach out to the local community to try to see how common rejections might be. They would also need to establish that CoreLogic is in cahoots with the management company.
When I tried it out I wanted 1password family so I could share some accounts with my partner. 1password 4 doesn't support their cloud datastore; the version that does will not run on Wine.
However, I could use the webapp on linux. It was a bit annoying but I could have dealt with it. The other complaint I had was the UX for Android. Having to switch my keyboard every time I wanted to enter a password was very annoying. Hopefully that gets better with the recently announced Autofill API for Android O.
So they notified their employees that same day as they shutdown. To make it right they offered them a severance of two whole days.
$ nslookup tplinklogin.net
Server: 192.168.1.1
Address: 192.168.1.1#53
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: tplinklogin.net
Address: 192.168.1.1
---
An external request:
$ nslookup tplinklogin.net
Server: 2001:4860:4860::8844
Address: 2001:4860:4860::8844#53
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: tplinklogin.net
Address: 103.224.212.249
Either way, the domain only makes sense locally. This is also why the domains still work even though they no longer own them. Therefore, if there were a local TLD, this would be the proper use-case for it.
Let's Encrypt avoided this by partnering with Akamai. Though StartCom really should have made an exception for Heartbleed.
Perhaps I look at it in a different view point. Application-specific passwords, username/password combo, and OAuth are all separate authentication methods. The compromise of one shouldn't necessarily compromise the others (though additions/modifications subsequent to a compromise should be suspect). When the protocol for disabling a user is that you use the reset password functionality, that's using the wrong tool for the job. This is especially true when a disable user button is quite prominent on the Google Apps admin dashboard.
I worked in a K-12 school district for a while and password resets were a fairly frequent event. We also had many other web services that used Google OAuth. I'm not sure I would be keen on having to reset all of their accounts every time they forgot their password. At least 95% of password resets I did were because of forgotten passwords (remember, Google Apps doesn't have a forgot password system) and not due to a compromise or suspected compromise.
Finally, I'm not really sure what the point of changing a user's password to disable an account is. The argument could be made that you might want access to some of their data, but there's other tools in Google Apps admin dashboard for that. Want an e-mail audit? That's there (well, it was an API when I last used the dashboard extensively). There's also tools to migrate all their Google Drive data to another user. If you have the higher end Google Apps account, then you'll have Google Apps Vault which will give admins access to almost all of the user's data even once the account is suspended.
I'll probably sell the server at some point but I have no idea what a fair price for it is. Perhaps I'll sell it using a double-blind auction.
My lack of foresight has led to it being stuck, still in the original shipping box, in my parent's basement.