Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Don't Trust Google (2002)

idlewords.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–87 of 87 posts

Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)

#81

Post by stock_toaster »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #21
stock_toaster wrote: post #18

Something like 5 out of the first 16 comments on this post were all from accounts (1 each) created under 1 hour ago. Weird.

It isn't surprising. There are lots of reasons why people are unwilling to put their "primary" HN account at risk when they want to say something which can be used against them (or simply down voted into oblivion). When I worked at Google I was very careful about what I said outside of Google, there is very little the company doesn't know about its employees. Being a trouble maker always looked bad on your calibratio…

Ah. That makes quite a bit of sense given what you said. Thanks for sharing that.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that google keeps tabs that thoroughly on employees -- but it still feels disappointing to hear it.

Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)

#83

Post by nostrademons »

Pacabel wrote: post #54
jmillikin wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being a trouble maker always looked bad on your > calibration scores and that translates into real money. Based on the successful career progressions of several well-known troublemakers at Google, I believe this statement is not currently accurate (if it ever was).

Can you name some names?

I was far from a model employee at Google - I continued to post on HN, I would challenge executives as to whether their actions were really in the best interests of users, and I would raise complaints I heard about elsewhere internally - and I don't feel like it hurt my career progression at all. I was promoted during my time there, and I largely got my pick of projects. When my old manager left the department, he told me that one of the things he and his superiors had really valued about me was my willingness to call things out that weren't working.

I do think that there's a right way and a wrong way to criticize your organization. As Ben Horowitz says, "Come from the right place." When I would say something negative about Google it's because I want it to be the best company it could be, and I'd often raise complaints internally rather than externally because that's where the decision-makers are. And if you want to be taken seriously, you also need to buckle down and contribute, and listen to considerations you may not have thought of. My manager said once that the folks who get fired are those who "Complain too much and contribute too little", and I can think of some prominent personalities on Hacker News who fit that description. Complain and contribute and you do fine.

Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)

#84

Post by mynameisvlad »

threeseed wrote: post #42
mynameisvlad wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't explain how they knew about the PH/BP, which makes people assume it was due to location data (like your first example). However, as for comment #1, Google doesn't use the SSIDs to determine locations on mobile, they use the [MAC Addresses]( http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/www.google.com/en/... ). They do have a database that also includes SSIDs for these MAC addresses, but there could be a dozen…

You haven't explained why Google wouldn't know about PH/BP. In Apple's implementation which I do know well the WiFi triangulation is enabled even at the coarsest resolution. Which is obvious since it is low cost. So if indeed there is one SSID/MAC in the area and it is coming from BP why would Google not know this ?

The presence of a SSID isn't indicative that you went to said business. If I lived above a McDonalds, Pizza Hut, and Subway, all with their respective SSIDs, that doesn't mean I am at any of the businesses. So sure, Google could know that there's a Pizza Hut near you, but they have no way of knowing whether you're actually at the Pizza Hut, or, say, the Tesco next door.

Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)

#85

Post by mynameisvlad »

hrjet wrote: post #48
mynameisvlad wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google doesn't specifically know you stopped at Pizza Hut or the BP garage. It uses coarse location (GPS being too taxing on battery to get constant location updates) which has an accuracy of 100+ meters. So it would know you stopped somewhere around the Pizza Hut, but not specifically that you went inside. Could have just as easily gone to the Tesco next door.

> [Google] uses coarse location (GPS being too taxing on battery to get constant location updates) which has an accuracy of 100+ meters. You mean Google Maps -- the app -- doesn't use location data from GPS? I am pretty sure that isn't true. If you meant Google Maps -- the service -- then the sentence doesn't make much sense, since it doesn't use any location service on the mobile directly. It is just interfacing wit…

No I mean Google, the company. Specifically, Google pings your location at intervals (building their Location history, linked above). For this specific use (which isn't tied to Google Maps), it's done through the Google Play Services, which, under the Location setting on your phone is listed as "Low battery use". This indicates that it is not using the GPS chip, but relying only on WiFi and Cell tower triangulation.

Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)

#86

Post by mynameisvlad »

IvyMike wrote: post #58
mynameisvlad wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google doesn't specifically know you stopped at Pizza Hut or the BP garage. It uses coarse location (GPS being too taxing on battery to get constant location updates) which has an accuracy of 100+ meters. So it would know you stopped somewhere around the Pizza Hut, but not specifically that you went inside. Could have just as easily gone to the Tesco next door.

If you have an android phone you may want to check out your location history: https://maps.google.com/locationhistory/b/0 Certainly far better than 100 meters in my case.

I think 100m is the best they can guarantee. You may get better results based on the data they have in your area (especially WiFi triangulation), but it's not guaranteed. In any case, the best they have for me is: http://imgur.com/vVbqSvr which is coarse enough to not actually provide much data. I could have been to any one of a dozen or so businesses in that area.

Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)

#87

Post by IvyMike »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #86
IvyMike wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have an android phone you may want to check out your location history: https://maps.google.com/locationhistory/b/0 Certainly far better than 100 meters in my case.

I think 100m is the best they can guarantee. You may get better results based on the data they have in your area (especially WiFi triangulation), but it's not guaranteed. In any case, the best they have for me is: http://imgur.com/vVbqSvr which is coarse enough to not actually provide much data. I could have been to any one of a dozen or so businesses in that area.

We all know it was Tim Hortons.
Post reply on HN