it seems like maybe a more reasonable conclusion to draw is that the search feature is still being tested and tweaked quietly, and as such facebook's press office isn't hitting the gas as hard on getting it media attention as it is on the professional services page. There isn't necessarily a 1:1 correlation between what they send out to journalists and what's reported, but there certainly is one.
Facebook's PR team did zero outreach on the professional services page. It was live for a month before a Social Media Manager at Acodez IT Solutions stumbled on it and blogged about it.
the common theme for half of the top 10 seems to be physical proximity to the pentagon, fort meade, or both. UMD, GW, George Mason, Georgetown and Hopkins are all in driving distance.
I agree, it also does a lot of little things right that other platforms mess up. For example, it's the only platform that doesn't penalize a team's defense for scores that occur when they're not on the field (e.g. an interception returned for a touchdown). It is, unfortunately though, an unholy browser memory hog as well.
With regards to your last point, it's true that the recruiter and candidate's objectives are loosely aligned, but it plays out a lot like the relationship between a real estate agent and client in practice, in which the best deals aren't always achieved due to effort overhead. Freakonomics did a pretty interesting piece on it. Youtube summary of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jO_w6f8Ck
The real estate argument is made quite a bit and has some validity, but there are other moving parts. The recruiter is least aligned with the client to some degree, in that the recruiter maximizes their own revenue by increasing the cost to their client (to the benefit of the candidate).
right, that's the aspect they address, it's the same for sellers agents. The issue is that if the agent (recruiter) has the option to increase the salary by say, 2000$, they see a small percentage of that, maybe 100$ worth? If it takes them 4 hours to negotiate that, it's not worth it for them to spend that time for a small gain, so might forego the opportunity. They might focus instead on getting the next placement, effectively increasing the $/hr they earn.
Depends on the recruiter you're talking to, but negotiation in most cases is done to get a 'buy' from the candidate. If I'm going to a client to get more salary, it is usually because the candidate won't accept the current offer (or at least says that).
Sometimes we'll negotiate just because the candidate wants to maximize the offer, but negotiation isn't usually as intricate or time-consuming as it's portrayed.
It does benefit me to close a deal quickly, but the easiest way to close quickly isn't by convincing candidates to take low offers - the best way to make a deal happen quickly is to convince the client to pay my candidate at or above market rate.
If candidate tells me $n gets their acceptance, the easiest way for me to close that deal quickly is to get $n+5 from my client - not to convince candidate to accept $n-5. And $n+5 also nets me more than $n-5.
The risk isn't the time spent in negotiations over a small difference to the recruiter's bottom line - the time is minimal. The risk is losing the deal entirely (and getting $0).
reading between the lines, it seems like they may have cause to believe fitbit induced the employees to grab that information before leaving. If that's the case then the case against fitbit makes more sense
Conley made the most colorful remarks of the day, including saying that he didn’t believe technical experts who said building backdoors is impossible.
“Did John Kennedy say we couldn’t go to the moon?” Conley asked. “He said no, we’re going to go because it’s the hard thing to do.”
“I’m a proud and patriotic American, too,” Farenthold responded. “But maybe the proper analogy would be if Kennedy said ‘We’re going to go the moon and no one else is ever going to go. Ever.’”
We're looking for people with application security skills to join our team. If you've been doing security for a while, or you're a developer with good security fundamentals looking to make the switch, this might be the job for you. We specialize in application security: websites, thick clients, and mobile. We've been around since 2002, and our founders are some of the guys behind the OWASP top 10. We work on a lot of cool technology for major clients in the financial, healthcare, government sectors, as well as others.
We're especially interested in people out of DC, NY, San Francisco, and Chicago, but fully remote is an option as well (a lot of our current engineers are fully remote) but must be able to permanently work in the US
Let's assume he's an actor and DNS is poisoned. Clearly this is intended to reach a wide audience. Presumably, the real CEO would learn of the fraud shortly. Let's say that takes a few hours. The corrected DNS will take 4 hours to propagate. So, how many people will sign up for fraud protection in between?
If I was designing an attack, a high visibility, low persistence attack where I send my victims to a website not under my control (unless you're asserting the attackers also got control of protectmyid.com) would not be my first choice, especially if I'm spending the money it took to shoot that video and stream it to all the people who you ostensibly want to see it.
> The corrected DNS will take 4 hours to propagate.
This misconception bothers me a lot. DNS changes are complicated: there's no "n" where "n = the amount of time where any domain will magically be fixed".
"Propagation" is based on the configured TTL values of the specific DNS records requested, for the specific zone. Add in layers of application/OS/intranet/ISP/DNS provider caching, and it's a complicated nightmare to fix/predict reactively.
Most BIND9 installations use 86400 seconds by default: 24 hours. And some domains use more, some less, some have dynamically generated TTLs to simulate changing of records at a set/recurring wall clock time, instead of a time to live, some DNS caches are reset frequently, some caches retain values much longer than allowable by TTL...
FYI, to reply directly to a comment, hit the "reply" link right below it, rather than typing into the "add comment" box at the top. It makes the thread more readable that way
