271–280 of 357 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She donated all of her share ($150m) to charity to boot.
For an extra $30MM in tax write-offs... because clearly she stands to make more taxable income than the $150MM in stock she donated: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10844592 .
and you consider it bad because she could have chosen paying those 30m taxes and keeping the rest (instead of donating it) ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had heard a while back (from a startup client I did some consulting work for (built and delivered a prototype), and who was in the HR/Job web app space), that Indeed.com was bought for ~$1bn by Recruiter.com . I wonder if they made money back on that buy.
Indeed was purchased by Recruit Holdings, which is a massive Japanese conglomerate. As far as I'm aware, it has been a success. http://www.recruit-rgf.com/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Isn't Apple violating user privacy in iOS just like Android? Doesn't seem that way. Consider the flak Apple took for standing up for users' rights with the whole Bernardino incident. And here's a specific example I read about a while ago. When you're using Google Maps, your device is directly identifiable in Google's servers all the time by a unique identification token. When using Apple Maps, your iPhone generates…
>ever wonder why Siri doesn't work as well as Google Assistant for a lot of people? You have some valid points on your post, but praising the inferiority of software based on perceived limitations of increased security focus seems like Apple cult-of-personality type stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I said nothing about corporate customers . I'm talking about individual accounts, and individual devices. Google knows where I go, who I talk to, how long I'm at places, how long I spend in the office, and on, and on, and on. And at an aggregate, they know how busy every shop is, the types of people that visit, etc. They're quite forthright about this. Through personal accounts -- which Google quite openly mines -- G…
It is in violation of Google's core principles and policies, and will never happen. Ever googler understands, and has it hammered into their brains repeatedly, that the worst thing the company could do is breach user trust by exposing or trading on user/customer data.
I for one, will never use a Google product again. They level of creepiness and data they have on all their users is insane. I personally have switched to DuckDuckGo, Fastmail, FireFox (the mobile browser is awesome btw), and will replace Android as soon as a viable alternative is presented. Smooth sailing. The problem with Google, is they are building a repository for themselves, but also for government. Couple that…
> FireFox (the mobile browser is awesome btw) I just tried to install Firefox on my phone, because the builtin browser regularly crashes. I browsed one page. It felt like my phone was about to melt. So I'm still using the builtin browser that crashes after fully loading a page.
The regular FF is terrible, but the beta one works OK for me
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Presumably the permission should come _before_ the reset? After the reset, all the data is gone anyway, and asking the password at that point seems pointless since The point, in this case, is not to keep the data secure, but to disincentivise theft of the device. You cannot resell a phone that prevents someone from using the device. >I read it as - "I did a completely normal thing like performing a factory reset of…
I fully accept the premise that a theft prevention system will limit the users ability to do certain tasks. My point was that this feature should also have blocked the factory reset from happening in the first place. That way, your data is still there, but access is conditional on you having the right keys, and there are no surprises.
It doesn't sound like that would have made any difference here (ie. instead of "I have a phone I can't use" the complain would be "I can't remove this old google account from my phone")
And actually, as an anti-theft tool, you don't want that, since you want to be able to remotely factory reset your device in case it is stolen (ie. the find my phone features).
When you hear about some new entrant to the space that you are creating a new product for, there is the inevitable "gulp" as you urgently scan their features to see how similar it is to your new thing, especially when the product is from a giant company like Google.
Fortunately in this case Google Hire just looks like another "me too" similar to all the other products. I'm hoping what I have built is actually some fresh thinking. Now if can just grind through the remaining tasks in that never ending task list....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly the work to be done in search in general is still gigantic, and it's even bigger in job. Despite having tons of stores of all sorts (app stores by microsoft apple and google, movies streaming stores like netflix, game stores like steam, ...) no one has truly found a way to solve the discoverability problem that feels really satisfying. Some are decent, but that's mostly by sending you so many stuff at once t…
To solve the appstore search issue Apple should just check what apps my imessage contacts are using and then recommend those apps to me.
A question I've always wondered -- If Google, or an employee at Google, used ML (or just classic techniques) to analyze the enormous, enormous troves of trojan horse data they have on the employees of virtually every organization across the globe, would it be illegal if they traded on that data? They could surely accurately call virtually any trend before anyone. They could see when morale at a firm drops, when hours…
I don't think it would be illegal due to insider trading laws; there are plenty of finance companies that seek non-public information to trade on, as long as it didn't come from someone with a requirement to safeguard that (i.e. an insider), it seems to be fine. It would probably be illegal for an employee to do this though without Google's consent; wasn't there a case of a few Chase(?) employees trading on credit ca…
If a company used Google Apps for their business email and someone at Google found out about a merger by reading about it in an email that they got from the CEO's email, that would be insider trading because the CEO is an insider and would have had a reasonable expectation that Google would keep their email confidential.
On the other hand, if the CEO by mistake sent an email about the merger to someone who used Gmail who was not an insider, that would not be insider trading because the person who had the expectation of confidentiality was not an insider.