andyjdavis

I said "try to sink it" not that they would necessarily succeed. That said if they are on board and have unlimited access to the entire ship it may be possible to sink it without any explosives. Not all ships even require explosives to be scuttled.

>They can't offload the containers

I never suggested that they would. Rather I suggested that they would ransack the ship and cargo looking for valuable components or equipment that is transportable.

I used to work at a place that was able to hold onto a sizable proportion of its technical talent for many years at least in part by allowing remote work.

In the minority of cases this was an in-office employee who went for remote either indefinitely or for a period of a year or two so they could go live somewhere else.

In the majority of cases it was someone in another location who was hired. They had the option to move to where the office was (including help with the visa system if necessary) or just staying where they were and working remotely. If a person is particularly attached to where they currently live and that area happens to have relatively modest employment options for technical people then chances are you will retain that person for a very long time.

I would note that whether retaining staff for 5+ years for reasons like the lack of similarly well paying options elsewhere is somewhat debatable. Holding onto staff for a long time is not in and of itself always a good thing.

I suspect there would be enough of value that could be stripped off the ship and removed to make it worth the pirate's time. Bear in mind that it doesn't matter to pirates if they cause millions of dollars of damage to extract a small fraction of that for themselves.

Cripple a hugely valuable ship and destroy much of its equipment and cargo to extract a few hundred thousand dollars worth of stuff that you can take with you? Sounds like a reasonable deal for a group of pirates. Hell, they might as well try and sink the ship once they are done with it to make it hard to gather evidence and determine exactly what was stolen.

It would take some time for people to do the math to determine what components of ships and common cargo have the highest value Vs their portability but someone would figure it out eventually.

Google wants to provide people with the best quality content. If you happen to have the best quality content around a topic then your search engine rankings will improve over time.

There is mention of trading data which suggests to me that it might be to do with traders employed by Citigroup ie staff members whose job it is to use a block of the bank's money or outside investor's money to buy and sell shares, commodities and pretty much anything where they believe they can buy and sell to turn a profit.

Do you know if they publicly release analytics about humans Vs bots? I would be interested to know the proportion of tweets from actual humans.

>what steps should a candidate take to avoid completing such tests and investing personal time that results only in giving the company free performance data?

Probably nothing different. I suspect that investing additional time and energy is not going to be a net win for you.

>The revised ad also made it sound like the position was far more junior than when I initially interviewed.

It is possible that there was discussion internally and they decided against paying whatever it would cost to hire someone like you. "We're not paying that, get a new grad" is not an uncommon refrain in some circles. If it helps, places that like are usually not nice places to work.

>it is just a jumble of collective stream of consciousness

Much of it isn't even that. A huge proportion are not even real humans but are instead accounts being operated by one of the myriad of pieces of software that enable automatic posting on behalf of a human.

Perhaps my view is skewed as we have a travel blog and know many other travel bloggers but a vanishingly small percentage are real humans actually typing their own tweets in real time.

Although how awesome would that have been.

"Ok, the photos are coming through now. Which, lol, should provide conclusive proof that no one is operating on the dark side of the.... what the hell is that?"

>Dollars to doughnuts they tried to use some internal-only API

Not at all necessary for this situation to occur. I just finished implementing a system (nothing to do with Pokemon) that also requests permission from external sites in a similar way. The mechanics for doing this are fiddly and checking this is actually set up correctly is likely well down the priority list provided things at least appear to work.

It is entirely possible that someone who had never done it before set it up in a hurry then everyone in the dev team just blindly clicked through without ever properly reading what was being requested because they were all in a rush to finish their stuff.

I actually just finished wrangling social log in for a system that is waaaay less popular than Pokemon GO. Rather amusing to see an organization operating at a vastly bigger scale still hitting the same sorts of speed bumps.

Although I am not a big fan of philosophizing around travel I will say that traveling alone is a very different experience that I suggest more people try, even if only once.

I have traveled a great deal, at one point travel full-time for several years, but I have only once traveled alone and not for very long. It was a profoundly different experience.

Personally I have no problem with stuff being corporate branded and/or juvenile but I am surprised that the cock-fighting element isn't mentioned more often in relation to Pokemon. Maybe it is because I have seen a little real life cock-fighting (and its horrifying) but I find that aspect quite repellent.

>Tindr is the poster boy for lowest common denominator

Why yes, it does have very broad appeal.