Datalogix is just one of several third parties that were allowed to push matching data to Facebook for the creation of segments (partner categories), as well as Experian, Epsilon, Acxiom, etc.
The way it works is not very different from custom audiences, but they are syndicated to every FB marketing api user instead of private to your account and there's a revshare with FB based on usage.
It's not hard to create a massive audience on Facebook if you're matching on public data like postcodes, but ultimately your understanding of that audience is based on how accurate your data is. Whether you believe that data companies have accurate data or not, it has nothing to do with their segment size on FB.
PS. the partner categories program has actually been discontinued as of April 2018, so these third parties will no longer be able to syndicate their data to all FB ads users in the future.
> PS. the partner categories program has actually been discontinued as of April 2018, so these third parties will no longer be able to syndicate their data to all FB ads users in the future.
One thing to point out is that it's true that the Partner program itself has been discontinued, which gets rid of all the 3rd party targeting categories within the self-service interface using Facebook-managed data integrations with those firms.
But the ToS[1] rewrite effective 5/25/18 goes out of it's way to ensure that they don't outright prohibit the use of third party data. They just effectively decentralized the usage of it and require ad buyers and the data brokers to have a direct relationship now, and leverage the custom audience functionality you mentioned to do the targeting. And in so doing allowed themselves to become willfully blind to the usage of 3rd party data plus shifting liability onto the advertiser for usage of it.
I primarily deal in Facebook for most of my clients. The 3rd party behavior targets etc.are notoriously inaccurate. Most bigger Facebook advertisers use lookalike audiences and Facebook first party data instead.
Since when is the whole US tech scene the same as Silicon Valley. All the statistics they showed were Canadians moving to the US in general for tech jobs. I am sure they are not all moving to Silicon Valley. Based on their own statistics seems like they should be going to Austin.
The average programmer salary in the US is $90-$100k.
In Canada it's closer to $50k.
To put that salary into perspective, the median Web developer salary in the US is nearly $70,000 according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. You can go live in a small'ish third tier US city in states like Iowa or Wisconsin and earn $75,000 per year as an ok Web developer, where houses cost $150-$200k. Or remote from those locations and do even better.
The top 10% of programmers in the US earn over $135k. The median is around $83-$85k. It's likely that the US median programmer pay is at least 2x that of Canada's median.
At the end of the day its up to the employees to realize what they are getting into.
Typically for a tech employee when it comes to compensation the equation is salary + bonus + RSU/options. Its important when considering a position to think through each piece.
In regards to the bonus how does it get determined what the amount is, is it known upfront, does it typically get paid out at 100%, over 100%? What is the percentage amount for the last x years?
For the RSUs/Options if its an established company how stable is it, if its a startup then how likely is the success of the company (in my case if its a startup then I personally don't depend on this part of compensation).
Well from my personal experience at startups quite a few of them do give bonuses. Its a way for them to have control over whether you get part of your compensation. Often based on performance (for the reputable ones) but sometimes just based on whether they feel like paying it!
The bonus isn't anywhere near what the larger tech companies do. I get it, they are cash strapped, my perspective is that they should go back to the VCs and double the size of their investment rounds to accommodate bonuses that are nearer to upwards of 50%-100% of the base salary. And the boards (which also include the VCs) shouldn't be balking at the idea of having employee equity pools greater than 5%.
They are acting like they are doing you a favor, but the current reality is based on greed (from the board) and it will simply take a collective of engineers to simultaneously realize they are undervalued, just like some financial professionals realized in the 80s.
Seems to me like a smart way to get their feet wet in the industry before autonomous cars become available. Since the first few generations will likely cost in multi-100,000 dollar range, the car-sharing model makes a ton of sense.
Personally I have found that a great manager is worth their weight in gold. Breaking down barriers, navigating red tape and bureaucracy so the team doesn't have to, helping keep the team happy. And most importantly being and advocate for the team to the larger organization. I feel that advocacy role is often overlooked. A great manager will make sure the powers that be know who is doing great work, what the team is up to and ensure they get the credit they deserve.
And at places like Google, this is how it does work (on paper. In practice there are always exceptions, either due to actual hierarchy or individual charisma). If you look at Google's org, you essentially have 4 ladders: 1) Engineering, 2) product management, 3) business, 4) G&A superstructure. You can bet that if you're a PM trying to decide roadmap priorities, you're going to be driven by input from engineers primarily, not customers, sales reps or professional managers.
Certainly, and in some of the places I have worked with a good manager, they were not necessarily considered "higher up". These companies had separate technical vs manager tracks in some form or another. So the notion of "higher up" depended on the track you are on.
Absolutely 100% this. There has been an unsettling trend for employers not wanting to invest in their employees. This includes training as well as compensation. Now employers in general expect colleges / university to adapt their degrees into job preparation programs and do all the training for them.
In some ways I can understand that employers are much more reluctant to spend money on developing employees as programs such as pensions that used to create a long term relationship between the employee and employer no longer tend to exist.
> In some ways I can understand that employers are much more reluctant to spend money on developing employees as programs such as pensions that used to create a long term relationship between the employee and employer no longer tend to exist.
1) Just provide tuition assistance with a payback period if an employee spends less than X years at the company.
2) Similarly, provide bonuses after X years for positions you need to train for.
Its not hard to get people to stick around 5+ years if you pay well and aren't toxic culturally with a 10% bonus every X years. My boss basically prices me out of the market every year so there isn't even a point in looking for a job.
I think the real problem is the CEO/CTO/etc in large companies are focused on what I can do this quarter/year that will make me look good. They aren't focused on X years down the road.
I am not sure why everyone thinks this has anything to do with bullying and intimidation. Greenwald implicated his partner by saying he had considered sending STOLEN documents to him in a previous interview. Of course British authorities would detain someone who might have stolen property with national security implications.
Stolen documents? No, no. He was, at worst, carrying a copy of information someone else copied without being allowed to so.
You see, if he were carrying stolen documents, someone at Booze Hamilton would be saying "shiiit, that manilla folder with the post-it saying important stuff, don't lose got stolen!".
If someone tells you a secret, hd might be a hero or a villain... but a thief he is not!
"When I was in Hong Kong, I spoke to my partner in Rio via Skype and told him I would send an electronic encrypted copy of the documents,” Greenwald said. “I did not end up doing it. Two days later his laptop was stolen from our house and nothing else was taken. Nothing like that has happened before. I am not saying it’s connected to this, but obviously the possibility exists.”
