This exactly. I once tried the twitter game, I thought it was important to have a big following or say clever things, whatever.
I was lightly burned by a tweet (of my own authoring) once, and I thought "I make $XYZ per year, twitter pays me nothing, this joke tweet caused me a lot of stress, the odds that being on twitter will get me cancelled will cost me $XYZ are non-zero and I don't control them"
Then I deleted all my tweets and my twitter account (8 years ago) and life has been really nice without it!
TL;DR "People watch fewer videos if they see more dislikes which means we make less ad revenue, the result of this A/B test is we will continue to optimize for ad rev"
Is it? How do they bill you without knowing how much data you transferred? How do they debug what went wrong with your connection without logs?
This stuff is barely scratching the surface of the data those companies collect and maintain, likely for long periods of time, just to analyze and improve customer experience.
I'd pay. But mostly, I'd pay to know the customer service would respond to me. Customer service at Google is like trying to cancel Verizon service - endless transfers.
I am starting to feel really nervous about storing my life in Google. It's not that I wouldn't pay for these things...it's just that I worry one day I'll lose access and fall into the pit of "trying to get Google to help a single human regain access" that sounds horrible.
Sure, but say your engineers cost you $100/hr, and every hour beyond 2,000hrs per year they work, they become more unhappy.
I think it's worth spending the 8 hours/yr/site, supposing you have relatively few sites. Plus, your engineers for 1hr/month will never achieve the same SLAs that AMZN will.
For smallish numbers of sites, it seems like the AMZN solution is fine. For bigger ones, there is always enterprise pricing :-)
"If you’ve ever been on either end of the table, you’re probably mad at the state of hiring, too. Whether you have given it a lot of thought or whether you just feel it deep down, something about the whole process feels off."
This feels like a really big assumption. Is it true? Is there data to back this?
I've felt annoyed at individual interviewers, or a process at a given company but I've in general felt like I got more of a fair shake in the tech world than other industries I've worked in.
The author proposes that we're somehow blocked from success because we can't type fast enough. Is that true? I don't agree; in fact, I'd rather be concise and communicate well than vomit more words onto the screen.
Additionally, beyond Dvorak, is there a better way to increase typing speed than spending what must be hours and hours building a bespoke solution for each one of your machines? And what is the cost of the inevitable tsunami of errors you make in the learning process? Are these neural pathways more valuable than say, learning a new language or practicing a different skill?
Then it must have been the police that broke into the Dior and luxury stores on the Champs Elysees and looted them...or that set fire to buildings. Or it was police that spray painted "the gilet jaunes will win" on the Arc de Triumph.
This behavior forced the city to endure blockades every Saturday and holiday for months. Small businesses near the riot areas were closed and had their windows shattered or spray painted by protestors. Ordinary citizens and their kids couldn't do errands and in some cases leave their apartments for on one out of two days off a week for months on end.
The protests were violent. Who started it you can debate, but against tons of news articles, photos and videos of people fighting hand to hand, getting gassed or throwing cobblestones, lighting buildings on fire...you don't really have much of a factual foundation to say Paris didn't suffer months of violent protests before the ND fire.
Also true that the two-tier system existed in one of the big tech giants and with it many of the same symptoms. It is interesting to see it again with Google, although I wonder if Amazon/Netflix/Amazon have a similar situation.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to defend yourself. HN has a low opinion of the concept of selling user data, but in practice, there are plenty of ad-supported startups represented here.
Google is selling your data to marketers. Facebook is one giant data-collection/data-sales empire. In theory, the HN collective hates data selling, but in practice, they love the companies that are doing it and their products.
I find it ironic that I come here and see people worshipping the big adtech companies and their tech but then when someone posts a comment about not selling user data, a thousand tin-hat naysayers jump out of the woodwork to flog them to death.
It's OK. It's why I can read the NY Times and a thousand other online newspapers - FOR FREE. It's why I can go to Google and type in "why does my butt burn when I poop" and get an answer - FOR FREE. It's why I can use dozens of adtech and user-data-supported services - FOR FREE. I pay for those things with data about me, my habits, and my browsing history.
I was lightly burned by a tweet (of my own authoring) once, and I thought "I make $XYZ per year, twitter pays me nothing, this joke tweet caused me a lot of stress, the odds that being on twitter will get me cancelled will cost me $XYZ are non-zero and I don't control them"
Then I deleted all my tweets and my twitter account (8 years ago) and life has been really nice without it!