The OP says he is "a security conscious user who follows the best practices like: using unique passwords, 2FA, only using a secure computer and being able to spot phishing attacks from a mile away..." yet I do not think he enabled 2FA on Amazon.com. If he did customer service would not have helped the hacker pretending to be him. As their help page says, "If you need help from Customer Service after enabling Two-Step Verification, you'll need provide a security code similar to when trying to sign in to your account." https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=...
Slightly unrelated -- John Resig's "Secrets of the JavaScript Ninja" is such a well-written book. It allowed me to not only understand but also appreciate JavaScript. I believe understanding JavaScript as a functional language is key to being a good JS developer.
I'm building a website for managing personal budgets for my girlfriend (existing applications do not meet her needs). I'm using Node and React for the frontend; this is giving me a chance to learn React, which I've never used before.
Anker (http://www.anker.com/) does something very similar to this company -- except, I think, it has a smaller selection of products. Judging from reviews on Amazon, Anker is also doing very well for itself.
I suspect that the goal is to be acquired by some big profitable company that wants to dip its feet into e-commerce. Or even being acquired by Amazon, which would probably want to eliminate all competition, even if its not profitable. The CEO of this company made a lot of money selling his last company to Amazon -- he's probably hoping to do the same here.
> An analytics applicant came into Jet for an interview. In some ways he was a model candidate, smart and driven. But he did not score high in the “plays well with others” category. Asked to talk about a recent project in which he was a member of a team, he could not think of any. His prospects immediately diminished to zero.
I hate this anecdote. Just because he could not, on the spot, think of a project in which he was a "member of a team," he is unable to "play well with others"? What if at his previous company he was asked to work by himself for projects? Does that mean he can't work in a team if he was made to? Does that say he's not good at analytics and doesn't deserve the job? Or what if he couldn't think of a good example of a project involving teamwork? I really hope this anecdote is merely incomplete.
The 17-month OPT extension has recently been terminated by a court. What are the chances that a new rule will be implemented regarding the OPT extension?
Glassdoor reviews -- like all reviews posted online -- should be taken with a generous helping of salt. A general reason is that most people post reviews to sites like these to either rant or rave, and the employees who had neither a great nor a bad experience (the majority of employees) have little to no incentive to post thoughtful reviews. Arguably, however, companies that a higher proportion of stellar reviews are clearly doing a better job keeping employees happy, so the overall rating may be worth trusting. But heed this warning: I know of one company that has a policy of posting positive reviews on Glassdoor. And they're clever enough to always populate the "Cons" section (and avoid overly glowing reviews) so that they won't give themselves away. Apparently they were having a hard time recruiting new employees, and one of the reasons was negative reviews on Glassdoor. Because Glassdoor wouldn't take the reviews down, they decided to post fake reviews. After learning about this (through a former recruiter at that company) I have a hard time trusting Glassdoor reviews. Who knows how many other companies do the same thing to attract talent?
I have no doubt that neither Google nor HP made those error maliciously. I was just curious as to whether or not it's possible to incorporate some sort of... tact?... into these recognition algorithms to avoid labeling people (or other things) offensively. Is it just a matter of a larger training set? It would be hard to cover all sorts of people in all sorts of poses, with all sorts of lighting conditions, etc.
Not getting enough good quality sleep with a newborn baby in the house is a real problem. But what is the solution, though? Hiring a full-time stay-at-home nanny seems the only way both parents can get enough sleep for the first several months, but there are many reasons why one wouldn't want to do that. Does anyone have any advice?
Great! The recognition seems fairly accurate, based on the examples they provided (haven't used Google Photos myself much, though). I'm still wary, though; I really hope we won't see a repeat of the labeling black people as gorillas fiasco, which happened as recently as earlier this year: http://mashable.com/2015/07/01/google-photos-black-people-go.... The article mentions that Google was looking into how these mistakes can be prevented... I wonder what they did/are doing?
I read this as: how successful you are has nothing to do with how innovative you are.
The Apple formula: keep innovations at a minimum, but market all your products as the coolest thing that anyone has ever seen anywhere. With enough of a marketing budget, everyone will believe you.