> or maybe just dialed back the "how many gas stations are in the US" type questions, after realizing this wasn't the best predictor of good performance.
These problems (known as fermi problems) have been out of vogue for over a decade now. Google is one of the companies that pioneered algorithm-centric leetcode problems as a replacement for fermi problems.
Leetcode problems are not hugely useful outside of the data given by solving a fizzbuzz. Rather, it’s just another excuse so interviewers can convince themself a person is smart, call it signal, and justify a hire.
The last time Google gave me a job offer, one of my interviews was literally a souped up fizzbuzz - straightforward imperative code with no trick, no complicated algorithms, and no fancy data structures. I suppose that may be the reason I got an offer, that I didn’t need fancy algorithms that I hadn’t prepared.
Ultimately it’s impossible to know if someone will be a good hire from an interview. Being a good engineer requires a bunch of traits that simply can’t be tested. The leetcode interview, as I see it, acknowledges this weakness and instead chooses to filter out low-effort candidates, as anyone persistent can practice leetcoding and interviewing (in theory).
I would be very surprised if anybody found an experience improvement, considering there are still ads.
That doesn't do to justify tracking, however.
Fun thought experiment: suppose that Facebook served fewer ads to those who clicked to allow tracking, on the basis that the ads are worth more, and served more ads otherwise. Which do you think consumers would prefer to choose on average? This isn't rhetorical, I genuinely wonder because I don't know how much people actually care about tracking versus just picking "don't track me" as an easy win.
This is a perfect example of why competition needs to exist in tech, even when products seem to exist in harmony.
I know this is contentious, but IMO this has been the strongest evidence thus far that we need regulation or antitrust to break up companies that own a platform and also compete on said platform.
Side note, I don't tend to view Facebook as some inherently evil corporation as many commenters seem to. I hope that by eliminating certain unsavory practices (like predatory tracking), Facebooks interests will better align with its users interests, and we will see a better Facebook for it in the future.
I think this particular issue is less about speech or cancel culture. This wasn't even populism (the usual force behind cancel culture), this was power structures that exist above us acting in our "self interest".
The Suess estate has all the right to denounce their own book or whatever. The real issue is that copyrights have been extended to last so damn long that something which ought to be in the public realm by now will be copyrighted for god knows how long (see: copyright term extension act).
Ebay has all the right to delist whatever they want in a free market. The problem is that we don't have a particularly free online marketplace. Unlike meatspace, the vast majority of 2nd hand internet transactions happen in a handful of marketplaces (amazon, ebay, etsy, Facebook, etc). These handful of mega marketplaces have become an oligopoly, effectively. I don't know the solution here (regulations? antitrust action? government-run open source marketplaces that would therefore only ban actually-illegal listings?), but the problem is that a few companies have way too much power.
In conclusion: Copyright has too much power. A handful of tech companies have too much power. Making this about cancel culture is, in my opinion, an absolute distraction of the real issues.
I can respect apple's strategy. For someone like me, who likes convenience but isn't particularly obsessed with sound or sound quality, this release exists to frame Airpods and Airpods Pro as "value" options.
Personally, however, I'm actively working on moving away from this ecosystem. I've felt like every purchase is a lose/lose for a while now. I can't deny that Apple products offer a superior experience in almost every category, but feeling like I'm getting ripped off every time I buy is miserable, that's just not how I want to live life. I used to love apple stores, now they just remind me of nearly-mandatory $200 storage upsells.
Sidewalk labs has a LOT of good ideas but, even putting aside privacy concerns related to Google ownership, the simple fact is that these good ideas are nearly intractable even when planned by trusted organizations with the best of intentions. Western cities just don't move very fast nowadays, for better and for worse.
Maybe this would work better in a country where cities develop faster and with less protest from citizens, but a lot of sidewalk labs best ideas boil down to "more affordable housing and less cars" which are mainly Western problems that derive from a lack of good urban development in the first place.
These problems (known as fermi problems) have been out of vogue for over a decade now. Google is one of the companies that pioneered algorithm-centric leetcode problems as a replacement for fermi problems.
Leetcode problems are not hugely useful outside of the data given by solving a fizzbuzz. Rather, it’s just another excuse so interviewers can convince themself a person is smart, call it signal, and justify a hire.
The last time Google gave me a job offer, one of my interviews was literally a souped up fizzbuzz - straightforward imperative code with no trick, no complicated algorithms, and no fancy data structures. I suppose that may be the reason I got an offer, that I didn’t need fancy algorithms that I hadn’t prepared.
Ultimately it’s impossible to know if someone will be a good hire from an interview. Being a good engineer requires a bunch of traits that simply can’t be tested. The leetcode interview, as I see it, acknowledges this weakness and instead chooses to filter out low-effort candidates, as anyone persistent can practice leetcoding and interviewing (in theory).