You work in a very toxic environment. I have no desire to work there.
Well, I can definitely sympathize with not wanting to work for a company of more than 50 employees in the technology sector, but it kind of is what it is. If you worked an agricultural job, unless you remote control a "robot" tractor (is a waldo/drone really a robot? Since when?), your in every day.
There's a great belief in sympathetic magic in this sector, where if you "Do like Google/Facebook/Twitter/Apple/Microsoft/Amazon/... does, and you will be successful, like Google/Facebook/Twitter/Apple/Microsoft/Amazon/... are".
Stacked ranking is one of those things, and so that's what the cargo cult imitates -- particularly since it's what they know, given that the startups are primarily being shed like dandruff off these companies, as soon as a group of enough likeminded employees all get an RSU payday at more or less the same time.
There are certain emergent properties to stacked ranking, and one of them is "The remote employee gets thrown under the bus, when graded on a curve, by peers, and your ability to keep your job is a competition".
Anyone who has done a mathematical regression analysis and a study of the corporate culture, can tell you what the other emergent properties are.
Get pissy, don't like it, call it eco-unfriendly to commute instead of working at home -- it is what it is, and the Nash Equilibrium is what the math makes it.
For knowledge workers, it's mostly dependent on their ability to contribute. Technology provides many ways to collaborate without physical presence.
Dude.
If it's remote you, or my in the office lunch buddies... who do you think we are all going to throw under the stacked ranking bus, come peer performance review time?
Honestly, I'd throw fission power under the green tent because that would help a lot with base load and distribution. It won't last forever, but it will buy us some time.
It'll last forever if you build breeder reactors instead of the stupid 60 year old designs.
The point your missing is it didnt work as a button, it bricked the phone.
The "error 53" display was turned off in the next update.
The phone isn't bricked. "Bricked" means that it's no longer usable as a phone.
Although if your only way in was the fingerprint sensor, because you didn't also set a passcode: that's a problem for you, but it's fixed with a factory reset.
Electronics aren't some mystical voodoo that just works. Many parts such as the home button can be disassembled and duplicated. They don't need access to Apple to make replacement parts for these items that work just fine. It's Apple that added software deterrents to using after market parts by implementing proprietary codes to their parts.
The Home button is cryptographically tied to the CPU.
Good luck making a home button ripped out of another iPhone correctly identify itself without having the correct cryrptographic codes. It'll work as a button; it won't work as a fingerprint unlock.
You are suggesting that the entire market of screen replacement and phone repair shops are all only using stolen parts?
No, of course not.
There are also parts provided to Apple authorized repair centers. By Apple. And there are iPhones which are legitimately parted out, after having been purchased legally for that purpose.
It's only the many of third party repair places that are using stolen parts. Not all of them.
They're not buying stolen parts, if that's what you're implying. There is more than enough demand for 3rd parties to manufacture replacement Apple parts. I just bought a brand new replacement LCD for an iPhone 6 for all of $25.
Given that Apple has a vertical monopoly on between 6 and 11 parts for each of their devices, you either bought a use part, likely from a stolen iPhone, or you bought a new part, stolen from the factory that makes the parts exclusively for Apple, or you bout a part that was from a repair center (and either it's a repair center which is violating its contract with Apple not to sell parts to third parties, or it was stolen from the repair center).
Apple intentionally controls the market to prevent "third shift" style product forgery, which is otherwise pretty common in China: run two shifts to build product for the contracted company, and then run a third shift, using the same employees, and parts sourced from different suppliers, to manufacture knock-off which you can then sell as if they were products from the company to which you are contracted.
Apple intentionally established vertical market monopolies on certain parts to prevent them being available, other than through sourced from Apple, or from parting out Apple products with the genuine part (sourced from Apple).
It's intentionally tied so that some asshole who steals you iPhone, and then parts it out on eBay for grey market repairs now has a worthless piece of junk.
This discourages assholes like that from stealing your iPhone in the first place, because they can maybe sell the battery and a couple of other parts... and that's it.
Do you think all those "fixit" shops were buying their parts from Apple? Apple only sells to authorize service persons, and they only sell to them because they have been trained in proper repair techniques.
Can someone figure out how to repair something with no training? Probably. But that won't cause Apple to sell them legitimate replacement parts.
Repairmen aren't consumers. They aren't very repairman friendly, outside repairmen who go through their authorization process.
It's like a building that's friendly to general contractors and union construction workers, but has no tolerance for the average "handyman" or the truckload of "sheetrock people" you pick up at the Home Depot parking lot at 7:30 AM to work for you for one day.
How are we even supposed to repair anything if everything is glued down? In Macs even components like CPU and RAM are soldered to the motherboard.
By replacing the motherboard. It's not glued into the case, glued to the battery, or glued to the keyboard.
What you are complaining about is not the inability to replace parts, it's the granularity.
You want to replace components *on* the motherboard.
You're actually able to do this... you just need some pretty expensive and specialized equipment to do it; you do own a reflow oven and an ultrasonic soldering jig, right?
Unless it's changed in the last few years, that's not how Google works (or most tech companies, in fact). They know that it's vastly more expensive to hire a bad employee than to hire no one, so they will throw out candidates with a single strongly negative score. They have enough applicants that they can afford to do this.
Everyone can have a shit day.
Even a Google employee sent to interview someone.
The process is intended to recognize this, and prevent it from having the effect you claim.
Read Lazlo Bock's book (that way, you'll understand, and Lazlo will have a 5th reader).
Since companies will not give feedback on why they didn't hire you, there is no way to know why things went the way they went.
I got declined for a job. I had a friend who worked there and told me why I was declined. I was completely off base about what I thought was going on. He said it was just one guy who was completely against me since I had given a really bad answer to a technical question he asked. The guy didn't show it at all and he it didn't even register that he had such a huge grudge against me.
That's actually not relevant.
When computing the interview score for the hiring committee, the top and bottom scores are thrown out.
He could have given you a 0, and if everyone else gave you scores that average out to 3+: you're in, as far as the hiring committee goes, unless there's a huge red flag, such as lying about criminal record, education, etc..
The DC-X was successful except for the idiot who didn't connect the landing leg.
Human error is not the same as a fundamental flaw in the program.
If the DC-X had six landing legs instead of 4, one could have failed (like it did) without the thing tipping over and exploding. It could have also landed on rough terrain, both on Earth, and off (moon landing, anyone?) without needing a relatively flat place to land.
Making it small didn't really serve any purpose, other than to save some money up front, and McDonnell Douglas, at the time, was pretty much printing money (which is what made it such an attractive target for a takeover).
Slashdot Mirror
You work in a very toxic environment. I have no desire to work there.
Well, I can definitely sympathize with not wanting to work for a company of more than 50 employees in the technology sector, but it kind of is what it is. If you worked an agricultural job, unless you remote control a "robot" tractor (is a waldo/drone really a robot? Since when?), your in every day.
There's a great belief in sympathetic magic in this sector, where if you "Do like Google/Facebook/Twitter/Apple/Microsoft/Amazon/... does, and you will be successful, like Google/Facebook/Twitter/Apple/Microsoft/Amazon/... are".
Stacked ranking is one of those things, and so that's what the cargo cult imitates -- particularly since it's what they know, given that the startups are primarily being shed like dandruff off these companies, as soon as a group of enough likeminded employees all get an RSU payday at more or less the same time.
There are certain emergent properties to stacked ranking, and one of them is "The remote employee gets thrown under the bus, when graded on a curve, by peers, and your ability to keep your job is a competition".
Anyone who has done a mathematical regression analysis and a study of the corporate culture, can tell you what the other emergent properties are.
Get pissy, don't like it, call it eco-unfriendly to commute instead of working at home -- it is what it is, and the Nash Equilibrium is what the math makes it.
So lump it.
For knowledge workers, it's mostly dependent on their ability to contribute. Technology provides many ways to collaborate without physical presence.
Dude.
If it's remote you, or my in the office lunch buddies... who do you think we are all going to throw under the stacked ranking bus, come peer performance review time?
F16s are obsolete because Americans pilots are too big for the cockpits.
OK, you made me spit tea out my nose.
Honestly, I'd throw fission power under the green tent because that would help a lot with base load and distribution. It won't last forever, but it will buy us some time.
It'll last forever if you build breeder reactors instead of the stupid 60 year old designs.
Anyone else picture robots chasing old people around?
With electrified "encouragement sticks"; yes.
This is really a boot in the face for people trying to sell stolen iPhone parts on eBay.
Won't someone think of the childrent^WiPhone theft rings?!?
The point your missing is it didnt work as a button, it bricked the phone.
The "error 53" display was turned off in the next update.
The phone isn't bricked. "Bricked" means that it's no longer usable as a phone.
Although if your only way in was the fingerprint sensor, because you didn't also set a passcode: that's a problem for you, but it's fixed with a factory reset.
Electronics aren't some mystical voodoo that just works. Many parts such as the home button can be disassembled and duplicated. They don't need access to Apple to make replacement parts for these items that work just fine. It's Apple that added software deterrents to using after market parts by implementing proprietary codes to their parts.
The Home button is cryptographically tied to the CPU.
Good luck making a home button ripped out of another iPhone correctly identify itself without having the correct cryrptographic codes. It'll work as a button; it won't work as a fingerprint unlock.
You are suggesting that the entire market of screen replacement and phone repair shops are all only using stolen parts?
No, of course not.
There are also parts provided to Apple authorized repair centers. By Apple. And there are iPhones which are legitimately parted out, after having been purchased legally for that purpose.
It's only the many of third party repair places that are using stolen parts. Not all of them.
They're not buying stolen parts, if that's what you're implying. There is more than enough demand for 3rd parties to manufacture replacement Apple parts. I just bought a brand new replacement LCD for an iPhone 6 for all of $25.
Given that Apple has a vertical monopoly on between 6 and 11 parts for each of their devices, you either bought a use part, likely from a stolen iPhone, or you bought a new part, stolen from the factory that makes the parts exclusively for Apple, or you bout a part that was from a repair center (and either it's a repair center which is violating its contract with Apple not to sell parts to third parties, or it was stolen from the repair center).
Apple intentionally controls the market to prevent "third shift" style product forgery, which is otherwise pretty common in China: run two shifts to build product for the contracted company, and then run a third shift, using the same employees, and parts sourced from different suppliers, to manufacture knock-off which you can then sell as if they were products from the company to which you are contracted.
Apple intentionally established vertical market monopolies on certain parts to prevent them being available, other than through sourced from Apple, or from parting out Apple products with the genuine part (sourced from Apple).
The touch sensor is tied to the CPU.
That's all the "error 53" issue is.
It's intentionally tied so that some asshole who steals you iPhone, and then parts it out on eBay for grey market repairs now has a worthless piece of junk.
This discourages assholes like that from stealing your iPhone in the first place, because they can maybe sell the battery and a couple of other parts ... and that's it.
Do you think all those "fixit" shops were buying their parts from Apple? Apple only sells to authorize service persons, and they only sell to them because they have been trained in proper repair techniques.
Can someone figure out how to repair something with no training? Probably. But that won't cause Apple to sell them legitimate replacement parts.
Apple is actually quite consumer friendly.
Repairmen aren't consumers. They aren't very repairman friendly, outside repairmen who go through their authorization process.
It's like a building that's friendly to general contractors and union construction workers, but has no tolerance for the average "handyman" or the truckload of "sheetrock people" you pick up at the Home Depot parking lot at 7:30 AM to work for you for one day.
How are we even supposed to repair anything if everything is glued down? In Macs even components like CPU and RAM are soldered to the motherboard.
By replacing the motherboard. It's not glued into the case, glued to the battery, or glued to the keyboard.
What you are complaining about is not the inability to replace parts, it's the granularity.
You want to replace components *on* the motherboard.
You're actually able to do this... you just need some pretty expensive and specialized equipment to do it; you do own a reflow oven and an ultrasonic soldering jig, right?
Is it possible to download "Superior GNOME" today?
All I can find is regular GNOME...
Thanks in advance!
Unless it's changed in the last few years, that's not how Google works (or most tech companies, in fact). They know that it's vastly more expensive to hire a bad employee than to hire no one, so they will throw out candidates with a single strongly negative score. They have enough applicants that they can afford to do this.
Everyone can have a shit day.
Even a Google employee sent to interview someone.
The process is intended to recognize this, and prevent it from having the effect you claim.
Read Lazlo Bock's book (that way, you'll understand, and Lazlo will have a 5th reader).
What makes you think that every company adheres to this methodology?
I don't.
The Article was about the Google X division in Google.
Google adheres to this methodology.
Since companies will not give feedback on why they didn't hire you, there is no way to know why things went the way they went.
I got declined for a job. I had a friend who worked there and told me why I was declined. I was completely off base about what I thought was going on. He said it was just one guy who was completely against me since I had given a really bad answer to a technical question he asked. The guy didn't show it at all and he it didn't even register that he had such a huge grudge against me.
That's actually not relevant.
When computing the interview score for the hiring committee, the top and bottom scores are thrown out.
He could have given you a 0, and if everyone else gave you scores that average out to 3+: you're in, as far as the hiring committee goes, unless there's a huge red flag, such as lying about criminal record, education, etc..
AR?!?
Clearly, Accounts Receivable is a harder problem than I thought it was...
Why do companies insist that things like this... are somehow a service?
serv.ice: noun:
1. the action of helping someone.
2. a system supplying a public need such as transport, communications, or utilities such as electricity and water.
Say, that seems handy...
Can I block everyone using the default icon?
I am almost positive I will be upgrading.
Not because I want to, but because Microsoft will "upgrade" my machine behind my back, whether I want to upgrade or not.
God help us all, if they ever get a zero day on Linux, because then a lot more machines will end up "upgraded" to Windows 10...
This is a brilliant idea!
I vote they name it "Google Labs"...
Can someone please explain... how you spend 3-4B /year on something you can't even fly to?
Is that the cost of the Russian Taxi service plus the SpaceX vacuum-friendly FedEx truck deliveries?
The DC-X was successful except for the idiot who didn't connect the landing leg.
Human error is not the same as a fundamental flaw in the program.
If the DC-X had six landing legs instead of 4, one could have failed (like it did) without the thing tipping over and exploding. It could have also landed on rough terrain, both on Earth, and off (moon landing, anyone?) without needing a relatively flat place to land.
Making it small didn't really serve any purpose, other than to save some money up front, and McDonnell Douglas, at the time, was pretty much printing money (which is what made it such an attractive target for a takeover).
Scale models are useful when they fail, though.
They are useful in limited realms, given that what's being tested is not the final product. We should probably be designing things to not fail.