dputtick

All of the engineering positions are SF only on your careers page – are you open to remote applicants for some of those as well?

I know that we've done this before, but as you might know, visa things can be so case-by-case that it's hard to generalize. I'd encourage you to apply to a position that interests you on our website and mention your question to our recruiting team.

Mapbox | Software Engineer | Washington, DC + San Francisco, CA + Berlin, Germany + REMOTE | Full-time | https://www.mapbox.com/

At Mapbox, we’re building the future of mapping and location. We build tools for developers to add beautiful and functional maps and location-based services to their websites and applications. We’re obsessed with individual growth and learning, building teams with diverse perspectives, and showing empathy for our teammates and customers.

We’re a fairly distributed team, with large offices in Washington, DC and San Francisco, CA, and satellite offices in Berlin, Helsinki, Bangalore, and Shanghai. There are limited opportunities for remote work on a team-by-team basis. As a result, we prioritize self-directedness and strong written communication skills.

Aside from our mobile SDKs, our codebase is largely nodeJS and React, although we write C++ where performance truly matters, as well as some Python for data wrangling and machine learning. We don’t mind if you haven’t worked with our stack before as long as you’re excited to learn!

Apply at: https://www.mapbox.com/careers

I'm not sure I agree that "the company has a huge incentive in firing him a day before he vests." First of all, the direct and indirect costs of hiring a replacement can be massive, and potentially larger than the value of the stock that isn't vested. An employee doesn't have to be "essential" in order to be extremely valuable, especially early on. Second, a company could make a habit of firing employees right before they vest, and even if they managed to completely mitigate the damage internally as soon as word got out about this practice they would suddenly find it impossible to hire quality talent.

Currently, pilots have the primary function of monitoring the automation, and exercising critical thinking when things go wrong. This can be everything from flight computers misbehaving, dealing with weather, avoiding turbulence, troubleshooting an engine fault indicator. Their secondary function of flying the plane is more or less because they have to be there anyway, and for almost all larger aircraft the autopilot takes care of everything except for maybe the first few minutes and the last ~1 to 10 minutes of the flight (although this varies based on airline, aircraft type, and individual pilot preference). Autoland does exist (google cat. 3 ILS), but it hasn't really been refined to perfection because the pilots aren't going anywhere as of yet and they are quite excellent at performing the last 200 ft of the landing sequence (once the runway is in sight in low vis conditions). Your average airline flight, in daylight and good weather, can really be quite a simple exercise. The outliers, with equipment out of service, bad weather, icing, or really serious things like an engine failure, are extremely cognitively demanding in a very "human" way and certainly outside the capabilities of perhaps anything short of an artificial general intelligence. I think the future of computing in the cockpit for the foreseeable future involves collaborating with humans to help them navigate these challenging situations and focus on higher level problem solving, rather than replacing them.

I'm guessing fishing story == a huge exaggeration.

As in, when you catch a normal sized fish and then go home and tell your friends about the massive fish you caught and how it put up a fight for two hours.

This is a cool idea, and something I would consider using. Two questions:

- How are you sourcing your translations, and what is your technology solution for matching them up?

- Do you have plans to make a native app for tablets that can store the books locally, or are you going to move ahead with improving your web tool for now?

This is an interesting idea - a few questions that come to mind:

How do you plan to acquire your trading data? Public filings? Experts voluntarily sharing their portfolios?

What type of experts do you envision being on your platform? Jim Cramer type CNBC personalities? Hedge fund managers?

I don't mean to be discouraging or 'that person', but I'm curious if you're aware of Nuzzel and how you would plan to differentiate from their product.

How do you initially plan to structure your loans/agreements (interest rate, term, etc) - and what adjustments will you consider making from those numbers to acquire users?

You're definitely right on the second point...especially with a few more decades of advances in transplant technology.

Seems like there is a innate human revulsion towards clones that has aided/led to the formation of this cultural bias. Unsure how easy it would be to replicate those feelings towards AI. Perhaps widespread acknowledgement of the potential dangers would be the first step.

Anecdotally, people seem to have trouble grasping the dangers involved. They think of the iPhone in their pocket and can't possibly see the risk. Obviously it's near impossible to put yourself in the shoes of an entity that could be orders of magnitude more intelligent than the most intelligent human.

It seems that the difference lies in the possible upside. Human clones currently don't seem likely to have much to offer. Conscious AI would have the potential to aid in the solution of a multitude of problems.

To counter your example: on their second, third, fourth companies repeatedly successful entrepreneurs have all the benefits from the first success. As a result, they are far less reliant on luck in relation to funding, talent, getting the word out, etc. For your example to fully prove your point, you would need to find entrepreneurs who have repeatedly changed their name and identity between each of their successes.