so a loan shark, I mean thats pretty much the lowest of the low ...
Auren Hoffman, the CEO of Safegraph, a large location data broker
oh shit, spoke too soon.
My former boss *used to* be good.
Take a very minor issue and amplify it loudly to make it seem much bigger than it is…draw in page views and make money.
I loathe this type of click-baiting…but on the bright side, the media companies that specialize in this stuff (Vice Media, BuzzFeed, et al) are often failing ones looking to salvage what’s left of their existence.
For example, Vice is drowning in debt to the tune of $1.1 billion[1]and is finding it impossible to sell for a price that’ll leave anything on the table for equity investors.
They tried the SPAC scam route [2] but I guess that didn’t work out for them.
1 - https://www.theinformation.com/articles/vice-media-makes-cos...
2 - https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/vice-media-raises-85-mil...
He would definitely get high scores in the psychopathy and entitlement categories.
Meeting a superior at 7 AM in your free time as a test to 1. see if you'll do something that is nakedly irrational and wasteful and 2. because a superior told you to is a very negative signal for companies that want to actually get shit done.
So yeah, I want to work for a company of people that are "entitled". Entitled to ask questions about what they are doing and why/if it is necessary. Entitled to say no to unexplained requests from superiors.
This kind of mindset beggars belief. I feel like some people escaped from a Lord of the Flies novel.
I'm not sure how the business culture is in his home country but there are a lot of cultures where that type of blind obedience is extremely valued and expected.
The thing is, in SV where flat organizations and working smart not hard are valued, it might filter for the wrong type of employees.
Especially at a tech company. Most 10x I know would flat out laugh at such a request.
It could have all kinds of algorithmic questions, system design, practical application building and whatever else. It would be administered in person to prevent cheating (as much as possible), and companies could choose which scores to pay attention to.
Meta doesn't find dynamic programming questions useful for hiring but likes all the other algo questions.
Stripe doesn't like algo questions but wants to see people bootstrap stuff. So let me just do that once (or per decade or what) so I can get over answering the same damn algorithm question at four different companies.
Conversely, this would save me from having to 'fail' the same type of DP questions I keep getting stumped on. Let's just save everyone time.
A fair test by competent testers, blinded against most discrimination. Of course they would hate it--they can't pretend it's not age discrimination anymore.
Stupid well-meaning decisions like these get carried out every day in business. These nuanced mistakes becoming permanent in some way would be the dystopic icing on a cake of bureaucratic nightmares.
Two CEOs, one of whom has 500 employees and one who has 100,said something on a podcast, and through the magic of strategically leaving off qualifiers for plural nouns, it's been transmuted into a newsworthy report with a headline that implies something broader than two relative nobodies throwing an idea out.
I get that there are too many wannabe journalists and not enough news, so in some sense I don't blame the author; he's grinding out a living in a morally-questionable field like many, many people do. But why do we have to infect HN with this nonsense?
So any contribution not logged in their system, doesn't exist.
Yeah, terrible still.
> Two CEOs on a podcast casually proposed a shareable database of worker performance that would follow them between companies, forever, and encouraged listeners to create one.
It's two tech CEOs, not tech CEOs in general.
It's two people with very little influence discussing a scenario on a podcast.
Didn’t seem like rage bait. It seemed like they laid out the context of this discussion with the rise of employee surveillance.
Do we have to wait for a startup to exist with this product before we can say it’s a bad idea?
