kkshin

Good content, but seriously who signed off on actually presenting this content the way it is presented? Seems like a high school multimedia class project.

How far is the technology from being able to do this on textiles? That would be sick.

This is a valid complaint, although probably has more to do with the fact that someone in product believed this does translate into a like (before the like system existed).

Also I believe Facebook does not show these ads for minors, so most likely she lied about her age... but I remember just vaguely reading about this at some point in the past.

The fact that this is getting upvoted at all is ridiculous. I saw this thread on Reddit and chalked it up to mob mentality on Reddit, but I'm pretty surprised to find that it is also getting upvoted here.

Let's think critically for a moment: Is it more likely that a 14 year old girl liked the AT&T page in all her days of using Facebook and forgot or that this is normal for Facebook ads that would potentially open them up for a huge lawsuit, after all this is basically libel.

Also check out this author's about section. He's a Google+ fanboy (Google+ is pretty nice, nothing wrong with liking it) and hardly a biased source.

Articles like this and its spread of misinformation highlight the inherent dangers of how easy the Internet has made it for random, misinformed people to get massive reach and it seems that even our "enlightened" community has fallen for it.

I am so disappointed.

Whoa, that looks really sweet. I especially liked how simple the dev tools looked, is that in the browser as well?

On-site interviews are a necessary for the most part, but phone screens have always been the bane of my existence. About 50% of the time I can barely understand what the other person is saying, mostly because the person conducting the interviewer is not a native English speaker. I almost never have an issue in person with non-native English speakers because you're able to pick up so much more context from subtle physical clues. I wonder if anyone else has this problem.

Disclaimer: My parents are non-native English speakers and I can't understand a thing they say over the phone, but in person I have no trouble.

I don't agree with your statement. Its equivalent to saying that I shouldn't consider buying ethically raised meat because its the same industry that factory farms are part of. One can identify the ethical quandaries and support producers that choose to eliminate them.

From the Korea Herald:

"According to South Korean experts, Pyongyang’s electronic warfare capabilities are second only to Russia and the United States."

Not sure how accurate THAT statement is, but North Korea has waged electronic warfare multiple times in the past including jamming SK's GPS systems at one point. They probably have a fully capable electronics warfare unit.

Its also quite possible that China supplies the technology/know how to conduct such attacks and uses NK as a proxy to test systems as SK military procedures are somewhat related to the United States.

Also, South Korea has REALLY bad security. For example, if you want to use some form of online banking you must use an ActiveX control with IE.

I just went through the process of whether I would purchase a diamond engagement ring for my fiancee or not. Rationally, it made absolutely no sense to me for the following reasons:

1) The idea of "blood" diamonds as well as the fat that the industry marks up diamonds to a ridiculous notion without translating any of those benefits to the societies it exploits. 2) There is no tangible benefit to a diamond ring that CZ or similar gem would not provide.

That being said, my fiancee very strongly wanted a genuine diamond ring. When I explained my viewpoints and she understood and said that she did not want to force me to purchase a ring that I felt very conflicted about. At no point was our relationship in jeopardy over the issue. Even so, I knew that she really wanted a rock and it took me a while to figure out what to do.

In the end I decide to get her a ring because it was what she really wanted, even though she was wiling to suppress her desires to respect mine. I wanted to respect her wishes as well. If she had threatened or had gotten upset over the matter, I might have not reached this conclusion. Maybe she's just a super shrewd negotiator.

For me, the biggest blocking point is the human hardship that goes behind the diamond industry, and I was able to somewhat subdue this by seeking out a conflict free diamond provider. There are a couple around and if this is your biggest blocking point as well you should look into it. Artificial diamonds were not an option for me, because at the moment they are not able to provide colorless diamonds afaik.

Having been to a number of "geeky" conferences, I was surprised at how large the number of women there were at the conference.

We should also keep in mind that this community has always been aligned more with the engineering side of entrepreneurship and less on the all the other equally important functions, which tends to make the community somewhat insular and under-represented.

An exhibit of his work is scheduled to start (if it hasn't already) at the SF MOMA.

A friend of mine worked as a curator for its stop in Korea and it was pretty cool. You can tell how much the original iPod and iMac were inspired by his work.

I guess what I meant was that the geography factors heavily into the culture, which feeds heavily into the leadership.

Even though large technology companies are opening offices, like you mentioned, the difference are that these are satellite offices. Your career potential will be limited, its just an unavoidable fact of the current corporate world. Its a very different scenario to move from the center of the solar system to Pluto.

A self feeding startup culture is not a healthy startup culture, at least imo.

One of Microsoft's biggest problems that contributes to their insular view is that they are located in Redmond. They're insulated from the rest of the highly competitive technology field (except for Amazon). This works out great for them when it comes to retaining talent in Redmond as employees are usually not willing to uproot their lifestyle to head to 'greener pastures'.

Contrast this to how Google handles compensation and employee retention. Granted, Google is a much smaller organization and can afford to be more nimble, but part of it has to do with with the fact that being in the valley means that its incredibly easy for talented, motivated engineers to move to the next hot startup once they're dissatisfied with their current job.

In Redmond, however, these options don't really exist and creates a culture of stagnation. People goto their jobs because they have and leave as soon as it is culturally acceptable.

I fear a lot of Microsoft's future as I just don't believe that they are able to recruit top young talent anymore. Not only is Microsoft not a "hip" place to work anymore, but their compensation is generally below market. Its pretty standard for funded startups to give more BASE salary than Microsoft. Google's base is roughly 50% more than what Microsoft pays. New hires at Google make more money than level 64 Microsoft engineers (5 levels from starting).

Microsoft will continue to execute and create good products, but until their internal culture drastically changes they will slowly slide into irrelevance.

I try really hard to not get pigeon-holed into using my company's (one of the mentioned ones) stack but its really hard. Why? Cause when you have a full-time job then you're working 8-9 hours a day and there's really not that much time left over. I do a lot of side projects that usually revolve around non-proprietary technology but really there are only so many hours a day. I think it comes down to a decision of whether you want to sacrifice employment productivity over your own enrichment (which might never even pay off)

Google is probably the highest paying large software company at the moment. Their base pay is very much above market at the moment due to its recent across the board 35ish% raises. It will be interesting to see how large companies like Microsoft will respond when their recruiting numbers drop.

Your master's degree does not have much of an impact, but I know personally of strong performers at Google with 3-4 years of experience who are receiving 135k-150k in base salary + other goodies such as their obscene bonus scheme and stock grants.