Nonsense. The government continues recording detailed historical information, just as its predecessors did.

It seems to me that there are two approaches:

1. Try to hire people with the skills to do what you need. If you can find and hire them, they'll be productive quickly and your investment in them will be low. If they leave quickly, you're pretty much back where you were when you hired them, looking for someone to fill a specific role.

2. Try to hire people with native talent but not necessarily with specific skills. They won't be productive quickly, so you'll have to invest a bit in on-the-job training which may be formal or may just be a matter of letting them be less productive while they educate themselves. If they leave quickly, then you will lose a lot of that investment.

Both approaches are reasonable, and both can be effective. IMO, the very best companies go for option 2, then do the right things to retain them, but option 1 can be fine as well.

Whenever someone circles my corporate profile from the public G+, I send them a message explaining that I only use this for work, give them my public G+ profile (and generally circle them from it), and then block them from the corp profile.

I actually don't find it difficult at all to avoid posting publicly from my corporate profile. It seems to me that the G+ UI makes that very clear.

They'll want to pay?

Cite?

Based on what I found, that seems to be a pretty serious mischaracterization. First, "successfully sued" normally implies that the suit has reached some sort of conclusion, but from what I can see all that's been successful is the filing. Google has made a motion to dismiss which hasn't been ruled on, AFAICT. Even if that motion fails, it just means that the judge doesn't think the suit is so ridiculous it should be tossed without a further look. That's a long way from saying it actually has merit. Second, all Google said was that ads were turned off for edu accounts by default. Plaintiffs allege that Google still uses the data in other ways, but I don't see that there is any evidence about that one way or another.

If you're right, then the reality is that even more than 50.7% of people are introverts, in which case introversion is clearly the norm and extroverts are the odd ones.

+1

Clearly human behavior lies along a continuum, some people are more extroverted and some are more introverted. So it seems quite expected that if you're drawing a line you should locate it so that half of the people are on each side.

I knew what the initialism means. What did you mean by it?

My description was more accurate.

Per a 1998 study, 50.7% percent of Americans are introverts. http://introvertzone.com/ratio...

Just one correction, not related to your point:

What Google actually sells is an advertising service, which is made more effective by using information in two ways, first to attract viewers, and second to decide which of the viewers is likely to be interested in which ads. The phrase "selling information" sounds like they're providing information to a party who gives them money in return, which isn't what Google does.

?

There are a lot more than you probably think. I'm one, and I work with many others. The median age is probably in the mid 30s, though.

I haven't been on line. I'm still connected only with my phone. https://plus.google.com/111463...

The point is that it's clearly not the driver (because there isn't one), which means it's between the maker of the vehicle and whoever else is involved when the judge and jury allocates liability. Not to mention the fact that if Google says "we'll pay" it will never get to court because everyone else involved will say "Okay". It only goes to court when the parties are all arguing they're NOT liable. Google has said up front that if the facts say the self-driving car caused the accident, then Google will pay rather than fight.