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

Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 300 posts

Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

#221

Post by bambax »

enneff wrote: post #216
bambax wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't date.

Does that matter? That you take such a dim, cynical view of human relationships is what saddens me.

No, it doesn't. I'm surprised you care how I view human nature. Saying my views are cynical, though, is a little like saying it's sad the reason the earth rotates around the sun isn't because the earth loves the sun so much, it wants to curl around it.

What matters isn't whether I'm cynical or dry or cold, etc.; what matters is whether I'm right, and if not, why not.

Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

#222

Post by ghaff »

lukeschlather wrote: post #71
robmcm wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was suggesting GPS wouldn't work with most rooms having ceilings. Wifi positioning I would imagine is highly inaccurate, which leaves the gyroscope. Judging by some screenshots and appstore comments I assume its only roughly accurate, and requires you to move your phone slowly between walls in straight lines (not via your pocket or around furniture for example). I think I would have immediately dismissed an idea li…

GPS is based on triangulating (well, trilateralating) between 3-6 fixed points in space located thousands of kilometers away. Wifi positioning is based on triangulating (trilateralating) between 3-40 fixed points within 100 meters. Assuming you can get access to the raw data, Wifi should be extremely accurate for calculating the distance between two points in space separated by less than 30 meters. (And probably pret…

Four actually. Three for position in 3D space plus one for time.

Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

#223

Post by abalone »

dsugarman wrote: post #153
abalone wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$2M was mentioned as the max offer for these types of deals (read: acquihire). They didn't have to get to the point of making an offer; he rejected that maximum. And $2M is definitely an acquisition.

mentioning $2M as a cap for acquihires was not an offer for an acquihire and was definitely not an acquihire offer for $2M. if you come back and say $2M seems nice, you just fell for a nasty trick.

Correct. However the point still stands that he considered $2M insultingly low. Not because he felt it was fake, but because even if it were a real offer it wasn't enough.

Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

#224

Post by mojuba »

VLM wrote: post #138
voodoomagicman wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have tried this as well - it was definitely not as simple as taking the double integral. In my experience moving and the stopping the phone would always end up with the two accelerations not exactly canceling out so that the calculated position would drift away from the true position at a constant rate. Even applying a floor to velocity to eliminate the drift, the distances calculated for simple linear motions were…

You could play substantial DSP style filtering games such that your average human walks at a very constant speed and is mostly either standing perfectly still or walking at a constant speed. So your non-moving data points are rounded to zero and generate an error signal, and your moving datapoints can be average together to a constant generating an error signal, and the error signals can be shared between the two dat…

Half a zillion idea: use sound echolocation principles.

Edit: http://www.gsmnation.com/blog/2013/06/19/echolocation-app-le...

Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

#225

Post by markdown »

bsder wrote: post #200
jseliger wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

manages via the fame of its name [. . .] What I experienced was less heinous but had the same elements- misrepresentation, name dropping I think the original author should name everyone involved. I understand why he didn't, but people can only get away with this shit because they do it anonymously and no one talks to each other. This is a much less extreme example, but years ago my former landlord threatened to kill…

> I wrote a post about what happened using his real name. Be careful giving this advice. This only worked because A) (minor) you filed a police report and B) (major) he didn't have enough money to drag you through a serious defamation lawsuit. If he decided to drag you through a defamation lawsuit, you would likely have lost because you wouldn't have had enough resources to defend aggressively. It's good to out bad a…

As long as one speaks/writes the truth and can back it up with evidence, one should not fear defamation/slander suits.

Unless you're in America, land of the dysfunctional legal system, home of the brave.

Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

#226

Post by justizin »

dreamweapon wrote: post #189
fecak wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a recruiter, I'd be curious to hear what tricks were played to get you to interview. I'm an independent, so when I speak to people there is never anything ambiguous about our discussions (my clients are not looking to acquire your product if you have one). Is it possible that Google liked your product and subsequently thought you might be a good hire, but didn't like your product as a potential acquisition? That i…

Is it possible that Google liked your product and subsequently thought you might be a good hire, but didn't like your product as a potential acquisition? That is where I think the difference lies. Were you contacted as "I'm from Google and we are interested in you", or "I'm from Google and we are interested in your product"? That is a big difference. If you look at the opening emails from the two Googlers (X and Y) t…

I think what's troubling people about the e-mails, and I'm not sure it's 100% clear cut, is that while it is plausible that this was a clumsy interaction, it seems more likely that this was classic bait-and-switch, and that these two individuals have a playbook they execute on the regular.

Anyone distracting someone who could be spending time on their own business, or billing hourly, with a business offer, should be incredibly concerned about a Lost Opportunity suit. Come up with a way to value the time that you spent, attach it to an opportunity cost, and bam, your dishonest business partner has caused your other business dealings to fail.

I don't want to encourage further abuse of the legal system, but IMO it is an abuse of the legal system to engage in an act you know to be unlawful or harmful, but difficult or costly to enforce.

Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

#227

Post by DubiousPusher »

lukeschlather wrote: post #71
robmcm wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was suggesting GPS wouldn't work with most rooms having ceilings. Wifi positioning I would imagine is highly inaccurate, which leaves the gyroscope. Judging by some screenshots and appstore comments I assume its only roughly accurate, and requires you to move your phone slowly between walls in straight lines (not via your pocket or around furniture for example). I think I would have immediately dismissed an idea li…

GPS is based on triangulating (well, trilateralating) between 3-6 fixed points in space located thousands of kilometers away. Wifi positioning is based on triangulating (trilateralating) between 3-40 fixed points within 100 meters. Assuming you can get access to the raw data, Wifi should be extremely accurate for calculating the distance between two points in space separated by less than 30 meters. (And probably pret…

In response to the three replies already here. I've never done this, I'm a game programmer. But I would use a big bag'O'tricks to address this. Getting unrealistically long distances out of your wifi data? Have the user enter a square footage and normalize on a logarithmic scale bounded by heuristics. Use the accelerometer not for tracking but detection like going up and down stairs, walking short vs. long distances.

Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

#228

Post by skeletonjelly »

ForHackernews wrote: post #211
driverdan wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They would be facing hefty lawsuits if they did that.

Are you a lawyer? Their terms of service[0] and privacy policy[1] appear to give them pretty broad leeway: "When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content w…

T&Cs aren't always legally enforceable though right?

Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

#229

Post by enneff »

bambax wrote: post #221
enneff wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that matter? That you take such a dim, cynical view of human relationships is what saddens me.

No, it doesn't. I'm surprised you care how I view human nature. Saying my views are cynical, though, is a little like saying it's sad the reason the earth rotates around the sun isn't because the earth loves the sun so much, it wants to curl around it. What matters isn't whether I'm cynical or dry or cold, etc.; what matters is whether I'm right, and if not, why not.

FWIW, you're wrong.

Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

#230

Post by bambax »

enneff wrote: post #229
bambax wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it doesn't. I'm surprised you care how I view human nature. Saying my views are cynical, though, is a little like saying it's sad the reason the earth rotates around the sun isn't because the earth loves the sun so much, it wants to curl around it. What matters isn't whether I'm cynical or dry or cold, etc.; what matters is whether I'm right, and if not, why not.

FWIW, you're wrong.

You missed the part about why not.
Post reply on HN