If I were in your place, I would start by scraping LinkedIn using Python or Golang and creating a large database, keeping relevant information and keywords for each user. Then I would come up with some sort of clever algorithm to sort the data into some kind of sparse graph with takes into account the distance between the nodes (i.e. how close each of the user is to one another) and then use a search algorithm to search for a specific user and or a number of closely related users.
Author of the article gives one TedX talk, then goes on to proclaim that he's an "expert" at public speaking and ranks himself in the "90" percentile for public speaking. What a joke!
Fear of public speaking is consistently ranked the #1 fear of the average person. I would absolutely put someone who can do it confidently in the top 10%. That's the point of the article: "A bit of work can quickly get you to the top 10%".
I got an 802.11ac access point before I got any clients. Either the chicken or the egg has to be first, and I don't replace my router together with my laptop/phone. I've had the same router for at least five years and only got a new one from the ISP because our current one didn't support IPTV. The old one is still in use elsewhere in the house as additional access point and is probably almost ten years old now.
Somewhere in a router's lifespan, someone in my household will buy a new Wi-Fi client. If I need to get a new router, I might as well buy one that I don't regret and want to replace within its components' lifespan.
The 2X speed increase is just coming from better MU-MIMO adoption, moving to 4x4 on 5G from 2x2. This is pretty old tech. 4x4 MU-MIMO has been available for several years now (since 2016).
The professor, author of this article, misses the point that the whistleblower is an "intelligence officer". Intelligence officers very regularly write extensive yet concise reports to their leads or higher up management, so it's not surprising that s/he wrote the memo well.
I believe you are interpreting some surprise that is not there. He takes the complaint as an example of good writing and that's it. He does not try to infer anything about the writer from it.
The best kind of "screwing around" is screwing around in plain sight. Once, I had a fresh grad in my team and I had to get him up to speed. I noticed he was taking more than the usual time to do basic tasks, yet whenever I passed by his desk, he had three terminals open and had c++ code here and there and compilation errors on another window. Two months later, he would move to a different company. Turns out that he was just practicing his programming skills, and all of this time I assumed he was working on assigned tasks.
I feel that it's easier just to have clear tasks with deadlines, using decent project management software like say Asana, Monday, or whatever.
If they're meeting the deadlines and the work is good, why bother wasting time being big bro and treating them like a child? Why not just go by results? (you can check commits as well, and CI not going off will at least tell you nothing is broken)
Once had a well paying job that I kind of got tired of not having much to do (long story: tried to quit, offered to be available on contract basis, nope they gave me awesome retention bonus, was asked to just stick around until company does X Y Z). Anyway I came in late, took 2 hour lunch, left early. Still was tired of being bored and was all caught up on YouTube. Got to the point I just told boss I’m not playing this pretend work game anymore, in fact I’m not even going to check my email anymore, call me when you need something from me. I did about 2-4 hours of work per month for several months. Picked up another job, eventually the company had done XYZ and they paid me retention and a 12 month severance. Never understood any of it, but didn’t complain.
I agree. I'm just questioning the management logic of being "expected to be busy at all times even without much to do". I remember some papers linking boredom and leisure activity with creativity. Creativity is important for programming.
Or, realize how much work you actually need the worker to do, and stop insisting on 40+ hour work weeks. Pay them for the work they are doing, not their hours. That's what salary positions are SUPPOSED to exist for. If they complete their tasks quickly, then let them go home.
> Two months later, he would move to a different company. Turns out that he was just practicing his programming skills
People sometimes challenge Google's interviewing process as being unnecessarily stringent. What I can say about it is that you won't find BS like this happening at Google.
This is bullshit. Why would any interview process filter out the factors that lead to screwing around, working on other things, or just burnout? They won’t and they can’t, as these are dynamic factors. Also I’m curious as to why you think a white board interview of all things is the deciding factor in at even minimizing this behavior.
A plausible reason why these behaviors are less common at google and Facebook etc is that they are paying much closer to “efficiency wages”.. if you’re working at the typical tech or Corp company you’re probably making shit pay, and why wouldn’t you study to get something better..
Google pays much better than average and is already top resume signaling, there’s just much less incentive to screw around.
Googles process is still not fantastic at filtering for general critical thinking.
Irony: the person referred to in the story may very well ended up at Google.
I know this possibility first hand. I worked for a shit shop nearby a Google office. My own fucking manager did whiteboard practice and ended up at google a few months later.
That's what I thought too, because "good" is an adjective and adjectives describe nouns. On the other hand "well" is an adverb and fits perfectly well.
