DevNull127 writes: Hiring is broken and yours is too,” argues a New York-based software developer whose LinkedIn profile says he’s worked at both Amazon and Google, as well as doing architecture verification work for both Oracle and Intel. Summarizing what he’s read about hiring just this year in numerous online articles, he lists out the arguments against virtually every popular hiring metric, ultimately concluding that “Until and unless someone does a rigorous scientific study evaluating different interviewing techniques, preferably using a double-blind randomized trial, there’s no point in beating this dead horse further. Everyone’s hiring practices are broken, and yours aren’t any better.”

For example, as a Stanford graduate he nonetheless argues that “The skills required for getting into Stanford at 17 (extracurriculars, SAT prep etc) do not correlate to job success as a software developer. How good a student you were at 17, is not very relevant to who you are at 25.” References are flawed because “People will only ever list references who will say good things about them,” and they ultimately punish people who’ve had bad managers. But asking for source code from past sides projects penalizes people with other interests or family, while “most work product is confidential.”

Brain teasers “rely on you being lucky enough to get a flash of inspiration, or you having heard it before,” and are “not directly related to programming. Even Google says it is useless.” And live-coding exercises are “artificial and contrived,” and “not reflective of practical coding,” while pair programming is unrealistic, with the difficulty of the tasks varying from day to day.

He ultimately criticizes the ongoing discussion for publicizing the problems but not the solutions. “How exactly should we weigh the various pros and cons against each other and actually pick a solution? Maybe we could maybe try something novel like data crunch the effectiveness of each technique, or do some randomized experiments to measure the efficacy of each approach? Lol, j/k. Ain’t nobody got time for that!”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Source: Slashdot – Is Hiring Broken?

schwit1 quotes IEEE Spectrum: In 2017, members of the mobile telephony industry group 3GPP were bickering over whether to speed the development of 5G standards. One proposal, originally put forward by Vodafone and ultimately agreed to by the rest of the group, promised to deliver 5G networks sooner by developing more aspects of 5G technology simultaneously.

Adopting that proposal may have also meant pushing some decisions down the road. One such decision concerned how 5G networks should encode wireless signals. 3GPP’s Release 15, which laid the foundation for 5G, ultimately selected orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM), a holdover from 4G, as the encoding option. But Release 16, expected by year’s end, will include the findings of a study group assigned to explore alternatives. Wireless standards are frequently updated, and in the next 5G release, the industry could address concerns that OFDM may draw too much power in 5G devices and base stations.

That’s a problem, because 5G is expected to require far more base stations to deliver service and connect billions of mobile and IoT devices. “I don’t think the carriers really understood the impact on the mobile phone, and what it’s going to do to battery life,” says James Kimery, the director of marketing for RF and software-defined radio research at National Instruments Corp. “5G is going to come with a price, and that price is battery consumption.” And Kimery notes that these concerns apply beyond 5G handsets. China Mobile has “been vocal about the power consumption of their base stations,” he says. A 5G base station is generally expected to consume roughly three times as much power as a 4G base station. And more 5G base stations are needed to cover the same area.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Source: Slashdot – 5G May Drain Batteries, While Base Stations Will Require Three Times As Much Power

Facebook cofounder Chris Hughes isn’t just idly wondering if regulators might break up the tech behemoth he helped launch. He’s going on a personal tour, meeting with state and federal officials to lay out in detail the way he thinks it could be done.

Hughes has met with members of Congress, the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission, and the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James to make a detailed case arguing Facebook is too big for its own good, according to separate reports from The Washington Post and The New York Times. The breakup tour went public in May, when Hughes penned a lengthy op-ed in The New York Times saying his former colleague Mark Zuckerberg wielded too much power. “I’m disappointed in myself and the early Facebook team for not thinking more about how the News Feed algorithm could change our culture, influence elections and empower nationalist leaders,” Hughes wrote at the time. “And I’m worried that Mark has surrounded himself with a team that reinforces his beliefs instead of challenging them.”

Tech and antitrust law experts Scott Hemphill and Tim Wu had already been working on a detailed case against Facebook, and they reached out to Hughes following his public turn. The trio now work together to make their case.

They’re now arguing that Facebook’s “serial defensive acquisitions” are preventing competition. The article points out Facebook has acquired more than 75 smaller companies over the last 15 years, and cites one negotiator who told the Economist that “Big tech firms have been known to intimidate startups into agreeing to a sale…”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Source: Slashdot – Facebook’s Co-Founder Is Now Lobbying the Government To Break Up The Company

The New Yorker reviews linguist Gretchen McCulloch new book Because Internet: Understanding the New Rules of Language

For McCulloch, the primary feat of the digital writer has been to enlist typography to convey tone of voice. We’ve used technology to “restore our bodies to writing”: to infuse language with extra-textual meaning, in the same way that we might wave our hands during a conversation. One general principle is that communication leans toward the efficient, so any extra markings (sarcastic tildes, for instance, or a period where a line break will do) telegraph that there’s more to the message than its literal import. That’s how the period, in text messaging, earned its passive-aggressive reputation, and why so many visual flourishes default to implying irony. Similarly, the expressive lengthening of words like “yayyyy” or “nooo” confers a friendly intimacy, and technical marks (like the forward slash that ends a command in a line of code) find new life as social in-jokes (“/rant”). Typography, McCulloch writes, does not simply conjure the author’s mood. It instructs the reader about the purpose of the statement by gesturing toward the spirit in which the statement was conceived.

McCulloch’s project is, at heart, a corrective: she wants to puncture the belief that the Internet de-civilizes discourse. She brandishes research that shows that we become more polite as we get better at typing. (As with online irony, online civility emerges from linguistic superfluity, the perception that an extra effort has been made, whether through hedges, honorifics, or more over-all words….) Through gifs, emojis, and the playful repurposing of standard punctuation, McCulloch insists, Internet natives are bringing an unprecedented delicacy and nuance to bear on their prose. To back up this (strong) claim, the book proposes that the Internet’s informal English actually draws from a variety of registers, using tools old and new to create finely calibrated washes of meaning. Considering a real text from a teen-ager’s phone — “aaaaaaaaagh the show tonight shall rock some serious jam” — McCulloch highlights the archaic “shall” next to the casual “aaaaaaaaagh.” Such intermixing, she argues, makes Internet-ese “a distinct genre with its own goals. . . . to accomplish those goals successfully requires subtly tuned awareness of the full spectrum of the language…”

“We no longer accept,” she writes, “that nuanced writing is the exclusive domain of professionals….” Her book’s almost political thesis — the more voices, the better — rebukes both the elitism of traditional grammar snobs and the cliquishness of, say, Tumblr. It’s a vision of language as one way to make room for one another.
`

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Source: Slashdot – Is The Internet Making Us Better Writers?

“The upcoming version of the Android operating system is taking a strong focus on privacy,” reports SD Times, “but the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) believes it could still do better.”

Android Q’s new privacy features include: user control over app access to device location, new limits on access to files in shared external storage, restrictions on launching activities, and restrictions on access to the device’s hardware and sensors… “However, in at least one area, Q’s improvements are undermined by Android’s continued support of a feature that allows third-party advertisers, including Google itself, to track users across apps,” Bennett Cyphers, engineer for the EFF, wrote in a post. “Furthermore, Android still doesn’t let users control their apps’ access to the Internet, a basic permission that would address a wide range of privacy concerns.”

According to Cyphers, while Android Q has new restrictions on non-resettable device identifies, it will allow unrestricted access for its own tracking identifier [called “advertising ID”]… “Facebook and other targeting companies allow businesses to upload lists of ad IDs that they have collected in order to target those users on other platforms,” he wrote… “On Android, there is no way for the user to control which apps can access the ID, and no way to turn it off. While we support Google taking steps to protect other hardware identifiers from unnecessary access, its continued support of the advertising ID — a “feature” designed solely to support tracking — undercuts the company’s public commitment to privacy,” he wrote…

Cypher also noted that while Apple’s iOS has similar identifiers for advertisers that contradict with its privacy campaign, it does enable users to turn off the tracking.

In fact, Android Q also ships with an “opt out of ad personalization” checkbox where users can indicate that they don’t want Google’s identifier to track them, Cyphers reports — but “the checkbox doesn’t affect the ad ID in any way.

“It only encodes the user’s ‘preference’, so that when an app asks Android whether a user wants to be tracked, the operating system can reply ‘no, actually they don’t.’ Google’s terms tell developers to respect this setting, but Android provides no technical safeguards to enforce this policy.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Source: Slashdot – Privacy-Focused Android Q Still Lets Advertisers Track You