Youry's Blog

Youry's Blog

Archive for the ‘Business’ Category

5 Steve Jobs quotes that will make you reevaluate your life choices

leave a comment »

Written by Workopolis,  Posted on October 5, 2016 http://careers.workopolis.com/advice/5-steve-jobs-quotes-that-will-make-you-reevaluate-your-life-choices/?cid=EM|B2C|NetworkNews|20161006|EN|C21005F20C793EB8068154D63A8A0D79|1

By all accounts, Steve Jobs was a difficult person to work with. He was, after all, the man that said, “my job is not to be easy on people. My job is to make them better.”

For all his faults (and perhaps because of them), Steve Jobs was someone that truly did help change the way the world works. To mark the 5th anniversary of his death, we’ve compiled some wise words from the man himself.

Here are 5 Steve Jobs quotes that will make you reevaluate your life choices:

“Have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow know what you truly want to become.”
Deep down, we all know what we’d really like to be doing. Sure, it’s probably not possible for you to become the Blue Jays’ starting shortstop, but ask yourself, is there something in that fantasy (aside from the money and fame) that can point you towards a job that you’ll truly love?

More importantly, what does that desire tell you about your current job? Do you wake up dreading going into the office? Your heart is telling you something – listen to it and have the courage to follow its lead.

“That’s been one of my mantras — focus and simplicity. Simple can be harder than complex; you have to work hard to get your thinking clean to make it simple.”
Ever hear of the KISS Principle? KISS is an acronym for “Keep it simple, stupid,” which is a reminder that things tend to work best if they are kept simple.

KISS acronym

This principle runs through Jobs’ career and the design ethos he encouraged, but as he said, it’s also the more challenging approach to take. The thing is, it’s usually also the most rewarding.

Life tends to get more cluttered as we get older, but the more you can focus in on what’s important, to make things simple, the better off you’ll be.

“My model for business is The Beatles. They were four guys who kept each other’s kind of negative tendencies in check. They balanced each other, and the total was greater than the sum of the parts. That’s how I see business: Great things in business are never done by one person, they’re done by a team of people.”
When it comes to climbing the corporate ladder, you might feel as if you’re in this alone, but that isn’t always the best way to approach things. Even someone as successful as Steve Jobs was adamant that his success was built on the collaboration of many different people.

If you don’t have this kind of work environment, look for ways to better collaborate with colleagues and superiors. Propose new meetings and brainstorming sessions, and seek out feedback and opinions. Not only will this give your work the benefit of outside points of view, it will also open the door for future collaboration. If this really isn’t possible at your current job, maybe it’s time to look for something new? It might not be that hard to find. After all, as Drake and Rihanna have shown, this is the collaboration generation.

“I’m convinced that about half of what separates successful entrepreneurs from the non-successful ones is pure perseverance.”
Jobs was so dogged and determined, author Joshua Kendall believes he had obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. We’re not suggesting that you need to take things that far, but clearly, setting goals and chipping away at them over time is a good recipe for success. As Jobs himself showed, mistakes will happen over the course of a career. The important thing is to keep pushing ahead.

“We don’t get a chance to do that many things, and every one should be really excellent. Because this is our life. Life is brief, and then you die, you know? And we’ve all chosen to do this with our lives. So it better be damn good. It better be worth it.”
Maybe it’s dark to be constantly reminded of death. But sometimes, that’s exactly the kick in the pants we need. Life really is brief (Jobs died at the age of 56), and the things we do on a daily basis should be excellent. They should be worthy of our limited time.

Can you say that about your current career? If not, it’s time to make a change. It’s never too late, until it is.

Advertisements

Written by youryblog

October 6, 2016 at 9:59 PM

The value of university

leave a comment »

 And the winners are…

Four-year non-vocational American colleges, ranked by alumni earnings above expectation

Our first-ever college rankings Oct 29th 2015, 15:41 BY D.R.

from http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/10/value-university

Rank▲ %ile College State Expected earnings Median earnings Over/Under
1 99 Washington and Lee University VA
$55,225
$77,600
$22,375
2 99 Babson College MA
$65,172
$85,500
$20,328
3 99 Villanova University PA
$60,457
$73,700
$13,243
4 99 Harvard University MA
$74,469
$87,200
$12,731
5 99 Bentley University MA
$62,329
$74,900
$12,571
6 99 Otis College of Art and Design CA
$29,565
$42,000
$12,435
7 99 Lehigh University PA
$64,562
$76,800
$12,238
8 99 Alderson Broaddus University WV
$31,769
$43,400
$11,631
9 99 Texas A & M International University TX
$33,695
$45,200
$11,505
10 99 California State University-Bakersfield CA
$37,028
$48,100
$11,072
11 99 Holy Family University PA
$39,411
$49,900
$10,489
12 99 University of the Pacific CA
$56,479
$66,400
$9,921
13 99 University of Saint Joseph CT
$39,827
$49,700
$9,873
14 99 Bucknell University PA
$59,356
$68,800
$9,444
15 98 University of Pennsylvania PA
$68,816
$78,200
$9,384
16 98 Georgetown University DC
$74,098
$83,300
$9,202
17 98 Drake University IA
$46,904
$55,700
$8,796
18 98 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute NY
$73,065
$81,700
$8,635
19 98 California Lutheran University CA
$44,364
$52,900
$8,536
20 98 California State University-Stanislaus CA
$36,381
$44,900
$8,519
Sources: US Department of Education; The Economist

AMERICAN universities claim to hate the simplistic, reductive college rankings published by magazines like US News, which wield ever-growing influence over where students attend. Many have even called for an information boycott against the authors of such ratings. Among the well-founded criticisms of these popular league tables is that they do not measure how much universities help their students, but rather what type of students choose to attend each college. A well-known economics paper by Stacy Dale and Alan Krueger found that people who attended elite colleges do not make more money than do workers who were accepted to the same institutions but chose less selective ones instead—suggesting that former attendees and graduates of Harvard tend to be rich because they were already intelligent and hard-working before they entered college, not because of the education or opportunities the university provided.

On September 12th America’s Department of Education unveiled a “college scorecard” website containing a cornucopia of data about universities. The government generated the numbers by matching individuals’ student-loan applications to their subsequent tax returns, making it possible to compare pupils’ qualifications and demographic characteristics when they entered college with their salaries ten years later. That information offers the potential to disentangle student merit from university contributions, and thus to determine which colleges deliver the greatest return and why.

The Economist’s first-ever college rankings are based on a simple, if debatable, premise: the economic value of a university is equal to the gap between how much money its students subsequently earn, and how much they might have made had they studied elsewhere. Thanks to the scorecard, the first number is easily accessible. The second, however, can only be estimated. To calculate this figure, we ran the scorecard’s earnings data through a multiple regression analysis, a common method of measuring the relationships between variables.

We wanted to know how a wide range of factors would affect the median earnings in 2011 of a college’s former students. Most of the data were available directly from the scorecard: for the entering class of 2001, we used average SAT scores, sex ratio, race breakdown, college size, whether a university was public or private, and the mix of subjects students chose to study. There were 1,275 four-year, non-vocational colleges in the scorecard database with available figures in all of these categories. We complemented these inputs with information from other sources: whether a college is affiliated with the Catholic Church or a Protestant Christian denomination; the wealth of its state (using a weighted average of Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia for Washington) and prevailing wages in its city (with a flat value for colleges in rural areas); whether it has a ranked undergraduate business school (and is thus likely to attract business-minded students); the percentage of its students who receive federal Pell grantsgiven to working-class students (a measure of family income); and whether it is a liberal-arts college. Finally, to avoid penalising universities that tend to attract students who are disinclined to pursue lucrative careers, we created a “Marx and Marley index”, based on colleges’ appearances during the past 15 years on the Princeton Review’s top-20 lists for political leftism and “reefer madness”. (For technically minded readers, all of these variables were statistically significant at the 1% level, and the overall r-squared was .8538, meaning that 85% of the variation in graduate salaries between colleges was explained by these factors. We also tested the model using 2009 earnings figures rather than 2011, and for the entering class of 2003 rather than 2001, and got virtually identical results.)

After feeding this information into the regression, our statistical software produced an estimate for each college based exclusively on these factors of how much money its former students would make. Its upper tiers are dominated by colleges that emphasise engineering (such as Worcester Polytechnic) and attract students with high SAT scores (like Stanford). The lower extreme is populated by religious and art-focused colleges, particularly those in the south and Midwest. This number represents the benchmark against which we subsequently compare each college’s earnings figure to produce the rankings. The bar is set extremely high for universities like Caltech, which are selective, close to prosperous cities and teach mainly lucrative subjects. If their students didn’t go on to extremely high-paying careers, the college would probably be doing something gravely wrong. Conversely, a southern art school with low-scoring, working-class students, such as the Memphis College of Art, might actually be giving its pupils a modest economic boost even though they earn a paltry $26,700 a year a decade after enrolment: workers who attended a typical college with its profile would make about $1,000 less.

The sortable table above lists the key figures for all 1,275 institutions in our study that remain open. The first column contains the median post-enrolment salary that our model predicts for each college, the second its actual median earnings, and the third its over- or under-performance. Clicking on a university pops up a window that shows the three factors with the biggest effect on the model’s expectation. For example, Caltech’s forecast earnings increase by $27,114 as a result of its best-in-the-country incoming SAT scores, another $9,234 thanks to its students’ propensity to choose subjects like engineering, and a further $2,819 for its proximity to desirable employers in the Los Angeles area.

In an unexpected coincidence, it has come to our attention that the Brookings Institution, a think-tank in Washington, happens to have published its own “value-added” rankingsusing the scorecard data on the exact same day that we did (October 29th). Although their approach was broadly similar to ours, they looked at a much larger group of universities (including two-year colleges and vocational schools), and they appear to have used a very different set of variables. Above all, the Brookings numbers regard a college’s curriculum as a significant part of its “value add”, causing the top of its rankings to be dominated by engineering schools, and the bottom by art and religious institutions. In contrast, we treated fields of study as a reflection of student preferences, and tried to identify the colleges that offer the best odds of earning a decent living for people who do want to become artists or study in a Christian environment. Similarly, the Brookings rankings do not appear to weight SAT scores nearly as heavily as ours do, if they count them at all: colleges like Caltech and Yale, whose students subsequently earn far more money than those of an average university but significantly less than their elite test results would indicate, sit at the very bottom of The Economist’s list, whereas Brookings puts them close to the top.

It is important to clarify how our rankings should be interpreted. First, the scorecard data suffer from limitations. They only include individuals who applied for federal financial aid, restricting the sample to a highly unrepresentative subset of students that leaves out the children of most well-off parents. And they only track students’ salaries for ten years after they start college, cutting off their trajectory at an age when many eventual high earners are still in graduate school and thus excluded from the sample of incomes. A college that produces hordes of future doctors will have far lower listed earnings in the database than one that generates throngs of, say, financial advisors, even though the two groups’ incomes are likely to converge in their 30s.

Second, although we hope that our numbers do in fact represent the economic value added by each institution, there is no guarantee that this is true. Colleges whose earnings results differ vastly from the model’s expectations might be benefiting or suffering from some other characteristic of their students that we neglected to include in our regression: for example, Gallaudet University, which ranks third-to-last, is a college for the deaf (which is why we excluded it from our table in print). It is also possible that highly ranked colleges simply got lucky, and that their future students are unlikely to make as much money as the entering class of 2001 did.

Finally, maximising earnings is not the only goal of a college, and probably not even the primary one. In fact, you could easily argue that “underperforming” universities like Yale and Swarthmore are actually making a far greater contribution to American society than overperformers like Washington & Lee, if they tend to channel their supremely talented graduates towards public service rather than Wall Street. For students who want to know which colleges are likely to boost their future salaries by the greatest amount, given their qualifications and preferences regarding career and location, we hope these rankings prove helpful. They should not be used for any other purpose.

CORRECTION: An eagle-eyed commenter has alerted us that all 20 listed campuses of Pennsylvania State University appeared with the same median earnings. Other keen observers have noted irregularities regarding a handful of colleges with similar names in different states. In response, we have reviewed the scorecard database, consolidated all colleges with multiple campuses but a single listed salary figure, identified and distinguished universities with overlapping names, re-run the regression, and revised the rankings and the text of this blog post. As a result, the top and bottom ten colleges published in our print issue no longer exactly match the ones in these updated rankings. However, the vast majority of universities moved by no more than a handful of places. Additionally, we have removed references to “graduates” and “alumni”, to reflect the fact that the scorecard’s income data do not distinguish between graduates and students who enrolled but did not graduate.

Written by youryblog

April 5, 2016 at 10:35 PM

How Ben Horowitz Accidentally Invested in a Company Now Worth $2.8 Billion

leave a comment »

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-ben-horowitz-accidentally-invested-slack-caroline-fairchild

I like this example: How Ben Horowitz Accidentally Invested In Slack “On Tuesday at the Milken Institute Global Conference in Los Angeles, Horowitz explained to a packed ballroom how Slack — the company now valued at $2.8 billion that is threatening to replace e-mail — came about after its founder failed to launch another idea. Stewart Butterfield, the founder of Flickr, originally got funding from Horowitz for a multiplayer game he was creating called Glitch. Yet Glitch was built on Flash and soon after the game was funding, Apple’s Steve Jobs and others stopped supporting Flash player. This made it impossible for Glitch to roll out onto mobile. “

Written by youryblog

April 30, 2015 at 3:50 PM

Posted in Business, Interesting

How To Get Hired — What CS Students Need to Know & A Future for Computing Education Research

leave a comment »

  1. A Future for Computing Education Research

    http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2014/11/179828-a-future-for-computing-education-research/fScreenshot 2015-01-20 21.38.45ulltext

  2. from http://www.kegel.com/academy/getting-hired.html

I’ve hired dozens of C/C++ programmers (mostly at the entry level). To do that, I had to interview hundreds of candidates. Many of them were woefully poorly prepared for the interview. This page is my attempt to help budding software engineers get and pass programming interviews.

Contents

What Interviewers are Tired Of

A surprisingly large fraction of applicants, even those with masters’ degrees and PhDs in computer science, fail during interviews when asked to carry out basic programming tasks. For example, I’ve personally interviewed graduates who can’t answer “Write a loop that counts from 1 to 10” or “What’s the number after F in hexadecimal?” Less trivially, I’ve interviewed many candidates who can’t use recursion to solve a real problem. These are basic skills; anyone who lacks them probably hasn’t done much programming.

Speaking on behalf of software engineers who have to interview prospective new hires, I can safely say that we’re tired of talking to candidates who can’t program their way out of a paper bag. If you can successfully write a loop that goes from 1 to 10 in every language on your resume, can do simple arithmetic without a calculator, and can use recursion to solve a real problem, you’re already ahead of the pack!

What Interviewers Look For

As Joel Spolsky wrote in his excellent essay The Guerrilla Guide to Interviewing:

1. Employers look for people who are Smart and Get Things Done

How can employers tell who gets things done? They go on your past record. Hence:

2. Employers look for people who Have Already Done Things

Or, as I was told once when I failed an interview:

3. You can’t get a job doing something you haven’t done before

(I was interviewing at HAL Computers for a hardware design job, and they asked me to implement a four-bit adder. I’d designed lots of things using discrete logic, but I’d always let the CPU do the math, so I didn’t know offhand. Then they asked me how to simulate a digital circuit quickly. I’d been using Verilog, so I talked about event simulation. The interviewer reminded me about RTL simulation, and then gently said the line I quoted above. I’ll never forget it.)

Finally, you may even find that

4. Employers Google your name to see what you’ve said and done

What This Means For You

What the above boil down to is: if you want to get a job programming, you have to do some real programming on your own first, and you have to get a public reputation, however minor, as a programmer. Don’t wait for your school to teach you how to design and program; they might never get around to it. College courses in programming are fine, probably even necessary, but most programming courses don’t provide the kind of experience that real programming gives, and real employers look for real programming experience.

Malcolm Gladwell wrote in Outliers,

… Ten thousand hours of practice is required to achieve the level of mastery associated with being a world-class expert — in anything.

Seems about right to me. I don’t know how many hours it takes to achieve the level of mastery required to program well enough to do a good job, but I bet it’s something like 500. (I think I had been programming or doing digital logic in one way or another for about 500 hours before my Dad started giving me little programming jobs in high school. During my five years of college, I racked up something like several hundred hours programming for fun, several hundred more in CS/EE lab courses, and about two thousand on paid summer jobs.)

But How Can I Get Experience Without a Job?

If you’re in college, and your school offers programming lab courses where you work on something seriously difficult for an entire term, take those courses. Good examples of this kind of course are

Take several of this kind of course if you can; each big project you design and implement will be good experience.

Whether or not you’re in college, nothing is stopping you from contributing to an existing Open Source project. One good way to start is to add unit or regression tests; nearly all projects need them, but few projects have a good set of them, so your efforts will be greatly appreciated.

I suggest starting by adding a conformance test to the Wine project. That’s great because it gives you exposure to programming both in Linux and in Windows. Also, it’s something that can be done without a huge investment of time; roughly 40 work hours should be enough for you to come up to speed, write a simple test, post it, address the feedback from the Wine developers, and repeat the last two steps until your code is accepted.

One nice benefit of getting code into an Open Source project is that when prospective employers Google you, they’ll see your code, and they’ll see that it is in use by thousands of people, which is always good for your reputation.

Quick Reality Check

If you want a quick reality check as to whether you can Get Things Done, I recommend the practice rooms at topcoder.com. If you can complete one of their tasks in C++ or Java within an hour, and your solution actually passes all the system tests, you can definitely program your way out of paper bag!

Here’s another good quick reality check, one closer to my heart.

Good luck!

Please let me know whether this essay was helpful. You can email me at dank at kegel.com.

Shameless Plug

I’m looking for a few good interns. If you live in Los Angeles, and you are looking for a C/C++ internship, please have a look at my internship page.

Links

Written by youryblog

January 17, 2015 at 6:40 PM

House in the snow How much you need to earn to buy a house in every major Canadian city

leave a comment »

I like this information

http://www.workopolis.com/content/advice/article/how-much-you-need-to-earn-to-buy-a-house-in-every-major-canadian-city/

 

House in the snow

How much you need to earn to buy a house in every major Canadian city

Elizabeth Bromstein| Jan 6, 2015 01:07 pm

 

Many say property is the best investment you can make. Bursting housing bubbles and mortgage scandals aside, they’re usually right.

The price of making that investment varies widely in Canada, depending on where you live. We looked at how much you need to earn to buy an average-priced house in every major Canadian city.

To get these numbers, we consulted Adrian Williams, a Toronto mortgage broker, and used his calculator found here. He explained that to calculate the income required you need to know the purchase price, down payment, rate, utilities – mortgage qualifying must include a minimum of $100 a month for heating costs – and taxes.

We got the average purchase price per city from the Canadian Real Estate Association (they fluctuate. These prices were effective at the end of December. To see the absolute latest click here and input your city), and Williams provided the property tax rates. At his suggestion we used a 2.99% interest rate, which is the average qualifying rate for a 5-year fixed term. We used a down payment of 10% of the purchase price and calculated $100 a month for utilities.

According to Williams, “Other factors that will be included with mortgage qualification are the total monthly payment obligations from credit card, LOC’s, personal & car loans, car lease and other types of credit that require a monthly payment.”

Here is what you need to earn to buy a house in every major Canadian market. (Numbers are rounded to the nearest dollar.)

Vancouver

Average price: $819,336

Monthly mortgage payment: $3,570

Property tax: $251

Income required: $147,023

Jobs in Vancouver

Calgary

Average price: $465,047

Mortgage mortgage payment: $2,026

Property taxes: $236

Income required: $88,578

Jobs in Calgary

Edmonton

Average price: $365,520

Mortgage payment: $1,592

Property tax: $244

Salary required: $72,617

Jobs in Edmonton

Regina

Average price: $331,161

Monthly mortgage payment: $1,443

Property tax: $378

Income required: $72,028

Jobs in Regina

Saskatoon

Average price: $349,322

Monthly mortgage payment: $1,522

Property tax: $366

Income required: $74,546

Jobs in Saskatoon

Winnipeg

Average price: $270,605

Monthly mortgage payment: $1,179

Property tax: $274

Income required: $58,235

Jobs in Winnipeg

Ottawa

Average price: $357,887

Monthly mortgage payment: $1,559

Property tax: $336

Income required: $74,820.28

Jobs in Ottawa

Toronto

Average price: $587,505

Monthly mortgage payment: $2,560

Property tax: $354

Income required: $113,009

Jobs in Toronto

Montreal

Average price: $344,273

Monthly mortgage payment: $1,500

Property tax: $237

Income required: $68,884

Jobs in Montreal

Halifax

Average price: $264,447

Monthly mortgage payment: $1,152

Property tax: $266

Income required: $56,929

Jobs in Halifax

 

Recent on Workopolis:

Our top tech predictions for 2015

Eek! The Most embarrassing job interview mistakes

Follow Workopolis

Written by youryblog

January 9, 2015 at 5:28 PM

Posted in Business, Interesting

Yosemite, iOS 8, Spotlight, and Privacy: What you need to know By Rene Ritchie, Monday, Oct 20, 2014 a 8:31 pm EDT

leave a comment »

According to Landon Fuller, who collected the data in the first place,
this is not just about Spotlight, and the data will continue to be
sent to Apple even if Spotlight Suggestions -- or any of a number of
other seemingly relevant system configuration options -- are disabled.

See

https://github.com/fix-macosx/yosemite-phone-home

for the raw data and analysis, without either the Apple apologism of
iMore or the journalistic spin of the Washington Post article they
cite.

Of course it is in Apple's interest to say that they care about
security and privacy, to emphasize how much effort they put into
minimizing data (we've heard this one from James Clapper before!), and
to claim that their snooping serves to benefit users by providing more
accurate answers.  None of this changes the surveillance they have
built into their system or how difficult it is to avoid!

Yosemite, iOS 8, Spotlight, and Privacy: What you need to know
By Rene Ritchie, Monday, Oct 20, 2014 a 8:31 pm EDT
http://www.imore.com/yosemite-ios-8-spotlight-and-privacy-what-you-need-know

A story made the rounds earlier today calling into question the new Spotlight Suggestions feature in OS X Yosemite and iOS 8. In an effort to garner attention, it reports the collection and usage of the information required to enable this feature in a needlessly scary way. As any long time reader knows, security and privacy are always at odds with convenience, yet features like Spotlight Suggestions — and Siri before it — do an excellent job balancing as much convenience as possible with maintaining as much privacy and security as possible. Here’s Apple’s statement on the matter:

“We are absolutely committed to protecting our users’ privacy and have built privacy right into our products,” Apple told iMore. “For Spotlight Suggestions we minimize the amount of information sent to Apple. Apple doesn’t retain IP addresses from users’ devices. Spotlight blurs the location on the device so it never sends an exact location to Apple. Spotlight doesn’t use a persistent identifier, so a user’s search history can’t be created by Apple or anyone else. Apple devices only use a temporary anonymous session ID for a 15-minute period before the ID is discarded.

“We also worked closely with Microsoft to protect our users’ privacy. Apple forwards only commonly searched terms and only city-level location information to Bing. Microsoft does not store search queries or receive users’ IP addresses.

“You can also easily opt out of Spotlight Suggestions, Bing or Location Services for Spotlight.”

Here’s the original charge:

Apple has begun automatically collecting the locations of users and the queries they type when searching for files with the newest Mac operating system, a function that has provoked backlash for a company that portrays itself as a leader on privacy.

The “backlash” cited by the sensationalistic story is not the result of the story but the result of sensationalism, and that’s disappointing. We depend on major publications to provide us with accurate information for our benefit, not for their own benefit. Where they could have taken the time to look into it, assess the facts, and help people understand, they chose to double down on FUD, and that’s not only disappointing, it’s distressing.

So what are the facts? Apple discloses how Spotlight Suggestions work in both the Spotlight section of System Preferences on the Mac, and in the Spotlight section of Settings > General on iPhones and iPads.

There’s also a Spotlight Suggestion check box on both so that you, the person using the device, can easily turn it off if you value privacy and security over convenience. (And if you are such a person, and have already disabled location services, Spotlight honors that setting and doesn’t send the information.)

Apple links to the following text right from the prefs/settings pane on both OS X and iOS. Not only is it simple to find, it’s plainly written and understandable:

When you use Spotlight, your search queries, the Spotlight Suggestions you select, and related usage data will be sent to Apple. Search results found on your Mac will not be sent. If you have Location Services on your Mac turned on, when you make a search query to Spotlight the location of your Mac at that time will be sent to Apple. Searches for common words and phrases will be forwarded from Apple to Microsoft’s Bing search engine. These searches are not stored by Microsoft. Location, search queries, and usage information sent to Apple will be used by Apple only to make Spotlight Suggestions more relevant and to improve other Apple products and services.

If you do not want your Spotlight search queries and Spotlight Suggestions usage data sent to Apple, you can turn off Spotlight Suggestions. Simply deselect the checkboxes for both Spotlight Suggestions and Bing Web Searches in the Search Results tab in the Spotlight preference pane found within System Preferences on your Mac. If you turn off Spotlight Suggestions and Bing Web Searches, Spotlight will search the contents of only your Mac.

You can turn off Location Services for Spotlight Suggestions in the Privacy pane of System Preferences on your Mac by clicking on “Details” next to System Services and then deselecting “Spotlight Suggestions”. If you turn off Location Services on your Mac, your precise location will not be sent to Apple. To deliver relevant search suggestions, Apple may use the IP address of your Internet connection to approximate your location by matching it to a geographic region.

Apple has also posted a privacy section on their website, and an updated version of their iOS 8 security document that reiterate what they’re doing and their long-standing position on privacy. Here’s the relevant parts:

To make suggestions more relevant to users, Spotlight Suggestions includes user context and search feedback with search query requests sent to Apple.

Context sent with search requests provides Apple with: i) the device’s approximate location; ii) the device type (e.g., Mac, iPhone, iPad, or iPod); iii) the client app, which is either Spotlight or Safari; iv) the device’s default language and region settings; v) the three most recently used apps on the device; and vi) an anonymous session ID. All communication with the server is encrypted via HTTPS.

The white paper goes on to explain how locations are blurred, anonymous IDs are only kept for 15 minutes, recent apps are only included if they’re on a white list of popular apps, etc. (It starts on page 40 of the above-linked PDF if you’re curious about the specifics.)

So, again, Apple is only doing what they need to do to provide the conveniences of the feature they announced — the same way they’ve needed to collect enough data to answer questions with Siri in the past, or show you locations on Maps, or find your iPhone, iPad or Mac, and the list goes on.

If you don’t like or want it, you can turn it off. That’s the real story here — education. How it works, and what you can do with it and about it.

If you have any concerns or questions about Spotlight Suggestions, let me know in the comments!

Written by youryblog

October 24, 2014 at 2:17 PM

“Most Of The Times I Ever Lost A Lot Of Money With Somebody, They Graduated From Harvard.” (from LinkedIn)

leave a comment »

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/article/20141015122055-29092–most-of-the-times-i-ever-lost-a-lot-of-money-with-somebody-they-graduated-from-harvard

Barbara Corcoran barreled into our office with opinions about everything and everyone. A ledge outside our offices on the 25th floor of the Empire State Building would make a perfect terrace, she said, offering the exact negotiating tips for snagging it. My questions weren’t precise enough, she thought. I should ask about the real estate firm she founded, Corcoran Group, first, then Shark Tank. She eyeballed one of the other editors and decided that he was dressed all wrong: cowboy boots, the pointier the better, were immediately called for. Corcoran’s bright yellow blazer would have made her the center of attention even if she hadn’t said a word. But with the torrent of thoughts coming out of her, the jacket was merely a set piece to the Barbara Show — and everyone had stopped working to watch.

The fact that there hasn’t already been a show centered on Corcoran before Shark Tank seems like a few decades of lost opportunity. How can you resist, after all, someone who, despite selling her 1,400-person brokerage for $66 million, insists that she’s never had a plan and that “the left side of your brain is totally overrated in business”? She knows what she’s good at and what she’s bad at and makes it clear that she loses interest very quickly.

What grabbed me is how counter all of her ideas are to the modern bible of entrepreneurship: The modern entrepreneurs say No wisely, focus on one segment, aim for megatrends. Corcoran’s feeling is that you try as many ideas as possible and fail enough times until you achieve success. No PowerPoint or detailed Excel. “I’m not a believer in the MBA type stuff,” she says. “Most of the times I ever lost a lot of money with somebody, they graduated from Harvard.”

You can watch her business philosophy play out on Shark Tank where a solid story and a gung ho entrepreneur will capture her eye and her wallet. Or you can see it play out in the very fact that she’s on Shark Tank.

Recently, she wrote about how she’d gotten hired and quickly cut from Shark Tank: Someone from executive producer Mark Burnett’s team reached out to her to be part of the original team of sharks. (For those not yet hooked, Shark Tank is a show where eager entrepreneurs pitch their company to a panel of business pros — the sharks. Each shark can try to buy a piece of the entrepreneur’s business on the spot.) She signed a contract, bought five outfits and prepared to head to Los Angeles. A few days before her flight, a call came in from Burnett: he was dropping her in favor of someone else.

Corcoran banged out an email: “I understand you’ve asked another girl to dance instead of me. Although I appreciate being reserved as a fallback, I’m much more accustomed to coming in first.” She laid out all of the rejections in her life and how she turned each into a success. She didn’t wait for karma to come around and bless her at some later point; she got mad and she fought for what she wanted now.

The right brain took over. Burnett relented and had her come out for a bake off against her rival.

Watch the video to get a full sense of Corcoran’s drive and what she can offer to the legions of entrepreneurs today.

—–

Some other highlights from the interview

On the future of brokers:

The brokerage business was changed the minute the Internet was born… It took the power of information, which is what the broker had the best of — that was their lock and key — and handed it right to the consumer. It took the emphasis off information. And it put the total emphasis on quality of service.
What will happen with the 6% commission? I’d be a fool to say it will stay as it is. But how far it might erode? I don’t really know. I’m not a fortune teller.

On what it’s like seeing signs for the Corcoran Group everywhere, but no longer having any say in its operations.

How do you just stop caring? You can’t do it.

I walked past our Madison and 89th office only two days ago. It was about 5:00 at night. I was annoyed that there were no fresh mums in those planters I had picked out. And so what did I do? I had them delivered anonymously the next day. And the guy planted them up for me.

Little nutsy, but walking by there, I thought: “Where are the bright yellow mums?”
So you don’t ever give up ownership of the association. It’s like your kids left town. But you’re always their mother.

But one other thing that drives me crazy, people constantly say, “Oh, I just bought an apartment from your firm.” That used to be the best news. I’d hug them and thank them for the commission. Now it’s, like, “Ah, crap.” I pretend I’m happy but I’m miserable. Another lost commission. That drives me crazy. Happens all the time.

On how she hires (and how the people she’s investing in should hire):

Who did I look for in a partner? Someone who was opposite. that’s how I met [early Corcoran President] Esther Kaplan, the most … organized, the most detail-oriented, the most controlling person I’ve ever met in my life.

And the bigger the business gets, the more it’s gotta look like a giant crayon box with a million different colors. That’s what gives the business its substance.
Most people like to hire pals that they get along with that are similar to themselves. Always the wrong call.

The first call I’m making on all 26 people I’ve invested in is what are their strengths? I’m listening with ears wide open to see what they do well. And then the next step I’m doing is convincing them they need help and who they oughta hire for help… every one of my most successful businesses from Shark Tank, the seven big winners to date, have opposite personalities at the helm.

On why a show about business investing is a hit
I think it’s inspirational. [People are thinking] I don’t wanna work for somebody. I wanna be in business for myself. And they’re coming up with ideas. And that’s why you see more kids on that show.

Written by youryblog

October 16, 2014 at 6:30 PM