slpsys

While the tone is sarcastic and downvoted, I somewhat agree with this poster. Maybe if this article were written six+ months ago, before the ad market tanked, this would have been a much more interesting topic.

"We interview people for culture fit. We want people who are passionate about what Zappos is about--service. I don't care if they're passionate about shoes."

I'm not entirely sure how accurate that is. Perhaps I'm used to software--in which jobs aren't [hopefully!] excessively tedious--but I'm sure lots of us participate in non-work-related forums and mailing lists, helping others for free, just because we are passionate about the subject matter.

Uh, I'm 100% not going to resort to ad-hominem attacks, but I don't think that, knowing that you are aware of the current state of taxes and fail to plan for them, I don't think you'll find a person on this board who thinks you're anything but a poor planner.

He also changed the link (while I was writing a comment). It now points to the general NAAL site, instead of that graph, so that you'd have to dig through a wad of information before discovering the link doesn't back up his claim. Bunk.

It's also worthwhile to note that while creating m1-large instances in [our] us-east-1a zone, we've been hitting insufficient resources exceptions when attempting to bring up instances. Now's an excellent time to apportion for mission-critical instances which come up and down with regularity, it seems like.

I've heard the same, though I'm not sure if they retroactively apply it to a long-running instance, prorate the rest of the billing period at that rate, or simply convert to the new pricing scheme for the next billing period.

That's...a great undergrad blog post that goes into much more detail than necessary (and juggles symbology, IMO), but if you are going to go into so much detail, why not discuss Levenshtein Distance?

"I was bad at presenting it"

was their constructive criticism to relax?

Objects should definitely just be an abstraction of the data, but I'm not sure where your specific requirement for a relational model comes from.

Uh..ease up. He's pretty much just repeating their criteria verbatim, which are relevant regardless of what the strata names are. If they're prepared to fund 1,000 companies they think are _really_ likely to make it, I think that implies there's no need for strata. The only way 'close' would make sense is if there were a cap, otherwise I'm sure they'd still accept a not-quite-ready idea they really, really liked.

it's also a Slate article vs. HN. i'd expect them to post questions that dazzle the least common denominator, while still allowing them to understand what's going on after a brief explanation. i'd be worried if HN _couldn't_ solve problems understandable by Slate's target audience.

Also, big companies like Google have offed their recruiting arms, or at least large portions of them. This is a red herring metric, at best.

There is no way this is going to be truly good for the local economy, that bridge may make it _easier_, but it won't make it _possible_ (meaning, transit was already ver, very possible). Redmond is tiny, if you can't get motivated enough to drive to the next bridge to get Taco Time and bolster the local economy, a closer one isn't going to motivate you.

The issue is control? As Executive Vice President (note that a conjugation of execution is in the title), if you don't have control enough to stop poor risk management that you're aware of in your own division...something's already very, very wrong.