Well, the dynamics of this space are interesting - you have the normal human eye balls that consume the media and are recorded as "views", "likes", "+1s", etc. These stats drive the ads - their ranking, prices, shows as well as various charges/payments made against/to clients. All known, expected and documented. (all of that driven by Google's internal infrastructure)

Now enter 3rd-party software running on hundreds (thousands?) of hosts, programmatically doing what was initially deemed to be "for human eyes only". The economics go to shit and so the programs are now trying to tell humans apart from programs, while the other side is pretending to be human.

This entire thing looks like the never-ending "adblock" discussion, but elevated to the next level. While I have a strong option on the old topic, this new thing is obviously a lot more nuanced. There are probably fake/robotic Google accounts in play, a bunch of AWS instances and may be even a botnet - none of that is cool. Yet, sticking it to the Man (using software tools) is kinda cool.

We have seen this before - Microsoft called it "Embrace and exrend".

Actually, I am having trouble forming an opinion on this feature:

• It is a well-specified (i.e. with an RFC-like spec), forward-looking feature that has a chance of being adopted by the existing industry, or
• An idiotic, Google-centric toy with zero interop because, well, my world is Google and everyone uses GMail.

Impossible speeds they say? Didn't Putin mention hypersonic weapons in his speech?

OK. So, can I order that for an enemy of mine?

I would hope not! Otherwise, my single most important reason for wanting these self-driving vehicles disappears.

OK, let's imagine this next-get call center:

"Hello, my name is Naveendra, how may I direct your vehicle?"

This. Exactly this.

That is why as a California resident I applaud the new law. I really see no point in giving this information away as it can only do harm in my negotiating round.

And let me quote from the actual bill:

Umm... why is that?

The law states (and I quote) from the actual bill:

There is no way for them to ask and they are not allowed to use the information. So, it is really hard for me to imagine a situation where I would feel compelled to voluntarily disclose this.

Right. Here in California every recruiter I have ever talked to asked "How much are you making right now?" at some point in the usual song and dance ritual. Some ask for a recent pay stub in addition to the number. Obviously it would be hard for the prospective employer to authenticate either one, yet I find lying uncomfortable and sometimes things like these can be verified through the grape vine to a reasonable degree of certainty.

That aside, as an applicant, I fail to see any point in disclosing this information, especially given that the stock-based compensation is not reflected in these baseline numbers. I applaud this new law and, as a California resident, look forward to a more reasonable negotiation for the next job.

Yes. Yes. YES! The latter question is totally reasonable, non-binding and has always been implied. I really hated the situation as the HR staff would place a candidate into a certain "grade" based on the previous salary.

Negotiation has always been there yet the undue pressure to disclose the baseline number (which is failing to take the stock-based part of the compensation into the account) is gone. I am very happy with this rule.

Whoa, wait a second here. You are trying to apply logic to the way HR processes work. While serving as an interesting thought experiment, this line of inquiry is completely pointless.

I said something along the lines of your statement to a Google recruiter who, without blinking, replied with "It's the process and there is nothing I can do". The very same thing came up with regards to references during the application. And then again more references while "they are putting an offer together".

The "employment" is a mutually beneficial thing, yet the recruitment is, from my experience, a very lob-sided, skewed affair. The employer is holding the cards, the fashionable/prestigious companies have a steady influx of candidates and so the HR staff are simply unwilling and unable to accommodate what you (and I) would consider to be fair to both sides.

California resident here. I have worked in the high tech industry for about 20 years and I applaud the new law.

This is great news. I have always hated this question when coming to the negotiation (or even starting a job application) as it puts the applicant in an awkward position. Obviously a "job offer" is a mutually beneficial affair, yet the employer's agent is always in a position of power while the applicant always comes around as asking.

Consider. You are just starting the usual song and dance with the recruiter who has a list of open jobs, thinks that they can understand bullet points on an engineer's resume and feels that he/she is qualified to "vet". The first question they ask after the the introduction is "So, how much are you currently making?". What can the applicant do at this point? Really, you don't want to close down, weaseling out is awkward and there is no good way to say "well, a market, yet I am looking for you to impress me". I've tried, this just backfires as there are other (easier) conversations that the recruiter would rather be having. Another few, more grounded points that are excluded from this $$$ question: what about the X units or stock that I received over the last year? What about the value of the private company and my exercised stock's value? What about the RSUs of the public company that I got, sold and made some extra money? Or kept in order to minimize the income tax? They never ask about total compensation, just the core salary.

So, yes, this is a very useful question for the recruiter to ask, yet is a pain for the applicant. I am very happy that the Governor has just signed this bill and I will not have to wince during my next interview.

Right. The following water cooler dialogue comes to mind:

- How goes it, Joe?

- Alright, just scored a 3% raise.

- How come?

- Well, Bob, it turns out my great-great-grand-mother was Japanese. So, I ticked the right box on the "race" questionnaire as there are just so very few of us here in the Mid West.

Hmm... Revenge porn you said? Do you have sample links?