OOPS!! Amazon’s Vancouver expansion tightens local competition for tech talent


SOMEONE FORGOT TO THINK OF THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

Marc-David Seidel, UBC Apologist for the Amazon Deal Predicts Pie In the Sky Bye and Bye

Tech workers are already in short supply and Amazon’s increased presence likely to lure workers away from local technology-based startups

Prior to the Amazon deal, the Trudeau government, BC and the Vancouver Economic Commission had been promoting the Global Talent Stream visa initiative, which will indeed most likely benefit Amazon, but the situation for the Canadian government’s Startup Visa for immigrant entrepreneurial companies is far from favorable. So the Amazon deal seems to have sent another torpedo into the growth of the high-tech entrepreneurial economy in Vancouver.

VANCOUVER—Following Amazon’s announcement Monday that the company plans to add 3,000 jobs in Vancouver by 2022 with a new office, observers say this could increase the competition for highly skilled tech workers already in short supply.

The Seattle-based retail giant, which opened its first software development site in Vancouver in 2011 with over 1,000 employees, announced that the new jobs will be in e-commerce technology, cloud computing, and machine learning. Employees will be working in a tower the company plans to build on top of the old Canada Post office in downtown.

Carson Woo, associate professor of accounting and information systems at UBC’s Sauder School of Business, said hiring is “a zero-sum game” for tech companies.

He recalls sitting in on board meetings among high-level executives from some of the city’s top employers, who hoped Amazon doesn’t expand in Vancouver. Their reservation, Woo said, comes from the time and money they’ve invested in training these workers.

“Essentially, you’re taking people from other companies,” Woo said.

This is why Woo believes the Canadian government will eventually allow Amazon to hire from overseas like it did for Facebook and Microsoft in the past.

“Because otherwise, the local companies will really suffer,” he added.

Bill Klug, an instructor of cloud computing at the British Columbia Institute of Technology, said small and medium-size companies will feel the pressure especially in what they pay their staff when competing with large multinational tech corporations.

In addition to demand outweighing the supply of tech workers, Amit Venugopal, managing director at Ecenta Canada Services, said Vancouver’s high costs of living has deterred workers he tried to recruit from the east coast who said the salaries offered don’t always match the cost of living.

“Vancouver has a very small native growth of technology workers and the cost of living is prohibiting people from other parts of Canada” moving to B.C., he said. In addition, workers aren’t always interested in being a programmer and opt for work in business or technology management that create a skills gap that employers need to fill.

Despite the growing competition for skilled tech workers, Marc-David Seidel, associate professor at Sauder, said his research in labour mobility indicates that these jobs will help Vancouver’s ecosystem to grow because as some employees will stay with Amazon long-term, others will create start-ups of their own, invest in other start-ups or work for other organizations, adding to the diversity of the workforce.

He highlighted Austin, Texas and Silicon Valley as examples of where the spin-offs helped grow the local tech economy.

“These types of announcements are more a sign that the ecosystem has been growing,” he said, “and that the culture that’s developing the ecosystem is being recognized by international players.”

Jenny Peng is a Vancouver-based reporter covering business. Follow her on Twitter: @JennyPengNow

Reid Hoffman: Venture Capitalist Loser | MIT Technology Review

An insightful interview with Reid Hoffman, venture capitalist and founder of LinkedIn. But to my mind, Hoffman seems blase’ about Big Ideas and “deep tech” funding. I share the views of Startup Genome founder, Max Marmer, and bemoan the limited focus of VC’s on world-changing technologies, leaving it to billionaire angels. I also sense myopia about the ongoing intense debate over the distortion of the sharing economy by Uber, Airbnb, and others.


UPDATE: Since I wrote this post last week, on November 25th, events swiftly unfolded to underscore the points I made in criticism of Reid Hoffman’s views on venture capital, in his interview with the MIT Technology Review. Bill Gates and a host of global leaders, Silicon Valley industry leaders, and high-tech billionaires announced the Clean Tech Initiative, at the opening of the UN COP21 Climate Change Conference.  This initiative precisely makes my point that venture capitalists like Reid Hoffman fail to see their social responsibility, or to examine the ethics of their investments.  At the time I wrote the opening paragraph to this post (below), I had absolutely no idea that my points would be validated by Bill Gates, Obama, and high-tech industry leaders  Meg Whitman of HP, Facebook Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg, Alibaba Chairman Jack Ma, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Ratan Tata, retired chairman of India’s Tata Sons, the holding company of the Tata group, and South African billionaire Patrice Motsepe of African Rainbow Minerals.  I would now go so far to say that Hoffman’s views are an embarrassment to himself in the face of the vision of others.

BillGates

READ MORE: Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos And A Host of Others Announce Clean Tech Initiative

An insightful interview with Reid Hoffman, venture capitalist and founder of LinkedIn. But to my mind, Hoffman seems blase’ about Big Ideas and “deep tech” funding. I share the views of Startup Genome founder, Max Marmer, and bemoan the limited focus of VC’s on world-changing technologies, leaving it to billionaire angels. I also sense a myopia about the ongoing intense debate over the distortion of the sharing economy by Uber, Airbnb, and others.  Thanks to Gary Reischel for posting this article on his Facebook page.

My attention is focused on two privately funded Big Idea entrepreneurial ventures in Vancouver B.C., General Fusion, and D-Wave.  General Fusion and at least two other companies in California and Germany are competing against the two massively funded governmental nuclear fusion projects, ITER at Cadarache in France, and The National Ignition Facility at the U.S.  Department of Energy’s Livermore National Labs. D-Wave, is pioneering quantum computing, having successfully sold two early quantum computers to Google and Lockheed Martin/NASA in Silicon Valley.

Max Marmer…read more: Reversing The Decline In Big Ideas

Read More mayo615: Are Venture Capitalists and Big Ideas Converging Again?

 

Source: Venture Capital in Transition | MIT Technology Review

Reid Hoffman has worked the entire tech startup ecosystem: he cofounded LinkedIn in 2002, used the money he made there to become one of Silicon Valley’s most prolific angel investors, invested early in Facebook, Zynga, and many others, and is now a venture capitalist at Greylock Partners. At Greylock, which he joined in 2009, Hoffman has focused his investments on consumer Internet companies that use software to create networks of millions of users, such as the home-sharing site Airbnb.

Startup incubators that nurture entrepreneurs’ early ideas, super-angels who invest small amounts in large numbers of early-stage companies, and project crowdfunding via Internet sites such as Kickstarter are all presenting alternatives to traditional VCs. Hoffman thinks firms like his can compete by providing services such as dedicated teams that recruit engineers and holding dozens of networking and educational events to help startups get big faster. He’s currently teaching a Stanford University class for entrepreneurs in “blitzscaling,” his term for the rapid scaling up of startups.

Hoffman spoke with MIT Technology Review contributing editor Robert Hof about why that’s especially important today and whether enough investing is being done in core technologies such as computer science, networking, and semiconductors.

How have changes in technology altered the way you invest?
Starting a software company is now a lot cheaper and faster than it used to be, thanks to Amazon Web Services, open-source software, and the ability to build an app on iOS or Android. Speed to realizing a global opportunity is more critical competitively. I wanted to build out a [venture capital] platform that was appropriate to the modern age of entrepreneurship.

VCs have always provided help on networking and hiring. How is your platform different?

Think about how an application gets built on iOS. It calls up services on Apple’s platform, such as a graphics framework or how to create a dialog box. Similarly, a business gets built by hiring people, developing its product or service, growing its revenues. The modern venture firm needs to provide a set of services that the company can call upon. We have a dedicated team to recruit engineers and product people. We have more than a dozen communities of people from big Valley companies like Apple and Facebook focused on technical topics such as big data and user growth. They meet with our companies to teach things like growth hacking, the use of social media, and other low-cost alternatives for marketing.

“There are still billions of people coming online. Also, software is affecting almost every industry … And we’re just beginning to see how data informs everything.”

How long will these software-driven networks you’re focused on be good investing opportunities?

There are still billions of people coming online. Also, software is affecting almost every industry, from transportation, with Uber and self-driving cars, to personalized medicine, health, and genetics. And we’re just beginning to see how data informs everything. Those trends are in the very early innings, so they’re the ones that will have the macroeconomic impact over the next five to 10 years.

You’ve said you don’t think there’s a bubble in tech investing, but surely not all these upstarts are worth so much?

People are so exuberant about finding their way to the cutting-edge companies that valuations are going up across the board. Some companies are so massively valuable that even when you invest in them at an accelerated valuation, they’re still cheap in retrospect. But many companies are given [high] valuations when they actually shouldn’t be.

I don’t think higher valuations in private [venture capital fund-raising] rounds lead to a massive [public] market correction. A private down round [fund-raising that values the company at a lesser amount than the previous round] doesn’t destabilize the public capital markets. But it’s still pretty frothy. So when you’re seeing inflated valuations, you sit it out.

Have you been sitting out more often?
We’ve passed on many more deals in the past two years.

Is true innovation beyond slick apps being financed to the extent it should?
Markets tend to go toward realizable, short-term rewards that require little capital.

That tends to favor pure-play software companies like Airbnb, Dropbox, and Uber that have global reach and network effects [in which a service becomes much more valuable as more people use it]. If more capital naturally flowed toward deep tech, I think that would be a good thing for the world. But you do have SpaceX, you do have Tesla. Deep tech isn’t that starved for capital.

VC investing is way up, but the traditional exit, the IPO, often comes after a company has already grown quite large. As a result, public investors, as well as employees don’t share as much of the increase in value. Is that a problem?
It used to be, back in 1993–’96, tech companies would go public and then public market shareholders would benefit from the huge growth in valuations. Now it’s more the private investors who benefit. I don’t think that’s necessarily a problem.

Doesn’t that go against the idea that employee stock options and so on will democratize wealth, or at least spread it more broadly?
Ideally, you’d like to make the capital returns available to everybody, not just to the folks who can participate in these elite private funds or elite private financings. I’d rather have it democratized. But on the other hand, it makes complete sense from a company perspective to delay liquidity, because they can run much more efficiently as a private company and get as much momentum as possible.

Uber’s Travis Kalanick Plumbs New Depths As Silicon Valley’s Biggest “Jerk”


Even in the early golden years of Silicon Valley, there were “Silicon Valley Jerks,” and unpleasant corporate cultures.  Larry Ellison and Oracle are the first to come to mind. Oracle was known as a very hostile, unpleasant place to work and there was a revolving door of senior executives who were fired by Ellison or who resigned. Microsoft has always been known as something of a “sweatshop,” with an excessively competitive and hostile culture, which may finally be changing with the new CEO, though his comment about women and promotions caused a flap.  We now know about the “Bad Steve” Jobs, though Apple has not had the kind of negative reputation of some of the other companies.  The late Jeanette Symons of Ascend Communications was notorious for her anti-social behaviour but also founded one of the most successful Internet infrastructure companies in history.  Even Intel, which has been generally regarded as a very positive corporate culture has had its share of “jerks.”  Former Intel VP Jack Carsten had the perverse reputation for being the catalyst for numerous resignations from Intel, and new startup companies that resulted.

But those examples pale in comparison to the current crop of new Silicon Valley entrepreneurs.  Travis Kalanick, CEO of Uber has transformed himself into the poster child for this problem. What is most disturbing, perhaps for Uber’s investors, is a stunning lack of attention to the perceptions around Uber’s brand image. Last week, Buzzfeed broke the story of an Uber senior executive who apparently planned a smear campaign against journalists, in particular, Sarah Lacy of PandoDaily.  The exec spoke of internal Uber meta data known as “Godview” that would be used, which raised questions about personal data privacy, and has now led to a formal inquiry from U.S. Senator Al Franken.  SFGate, the Web arm of the San Francisco Chronicle has also posted an article posing questions about Uber’s employment and “partnership” arrangements with drivers.  Kalanick may now have a headache, but he is not alone.  Who can forget venture capitalist Tom Perkin’s statement that the treatment of the rich in the United States was like the persecution of the Jews by Nazi Germany? The infighting among founders at Twitter has been an ugly airing of dirty laundry, and the ostentatious “nouveau riche” behaviour of others has caused ripples of resentment though the Valley and San Francisco.  Much of the criticism seems to center on the venture capitalists who have encouraged these personality types, but in fairness there are venture capitalists who are as appalled as everyone else, and refuse to invest in arrogant “God’s gift” personalities. I have also written two earlier blog posts about this problem, from my own personal perspective, having survived one of Silicon Valley’s jerks.  Links to my two previous posts are shown below.

From SFGate, via Business Insider, Saturday November 23rd, 2014, by Alyson Shontell

There’s a notion that some people become successful company founders because they have the right “Startup DNA.”

The DNA is comprised of characteristics like “resilience” and “ability to accept risk.”

Another characteristic many top entrepreneurs share is arrogance. Or worse, just being a huge jerk.

While reporting a long profile of Travis Kalanick last winter, Business Insider found a lot of people who thought Kalanick was a legendary CEO.

Friends compared him to Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison.

But some who were in awe of Kalanick also said he was a jerk.

“Sometimes,” one acquaintance said of Kalanick, “–holes create great businesses.”

Inside Silicon Valley, arrogance runs rampant and investors seem to reward ruthless behavior with piles of cash.

There are numerous examples of founders who have had moments of terrible behavior that later became infamous. The founders might not be jerks all the time, of course. Everyone has moments when they behave boorishly. But sometimes the stories are so unbelievable, it can leave a lasting negative impressive of the person — that whether criticism is deserved or not.

For instance, Mark Zuckerberg, who is now worth tens of billions, famously ousted his friend Eduardo Saverin from Facebook. He also stole his business idea from the Winklevoss twins. “Yah, I’m going to f– them,” he told a friend over IM about the pair. “Probably in the ear.”

Snapchat CEO Evan Spiegel wrote a number of misogynistic-sounding emails when he was in college to his fraternity brothers. Once, Spiegel was so angry with his parents, he reportedly cut himself out of family photos.

Twitter’s co-founders back-stabbed each other repeatedly: Founder Noah Glass was booted out of the company. Ev Williams and Jack Dorsey were both given, and then stripped of, the CEO title. And Jeff Bezos, who runs Amazon, wreaks havoc in his organization by sending a single-character email: “?”

Even Steve Jobs, one of the world’s most-praised entrepreneurs, was said to have two sides. Jobs’ biographer, Walter Isaacson, portrayed the late Apple CEO as “Good Steve” and “Bad Steve.” An example: Jobs once stormed into a meeting and called everyone “f–ing dickless –holes.”

Robert Sutton spent a lot of time conducting research for his book, “No –hole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One that Isn’t,” What he found was disappointing.

“Even people who worked with Jobs told me that they’d seen him make people cry many times, but that 80 percent of the time he was right, ” Sutton said. “It is troubling that there’s this notion in our culture that if you’re a winner, it’s okay to be an –hole.”

It is troubling that there’s this notion in our culture that if you’re a winner, it’s okay to be an –hole.

The Atlantic’s Tom McNichol agrees. He wrote an article titled: “Be a Jerk: The Worst Business Lesson from the Steve Jobs biography.”

Here’s an excerpt:

The ease with which people can possess astonishingly contradictory qualities is one of the mysteries of human nature; indeed, it’s one of the things that separates humans from, say, an Apple computer. Every one of the components that makes up an iPad is essential to the work it produces. Remove one part and the machine no longer performs its job, and not even the Genius Bar can fix it. But humans are full of qualities that are in no way integral to their functioning in the world. Some aspects of personality have little or no bearing on whether a person performs well, and not a few people succeed in spite of their darker qualities.

So, is it possible to be nice and to be wildly successful in business? And in Silicon Valley, where people praise Steve Jobs’ bad habits and founders rag on the homeless, can you be financially rewarded if you’re nice?

One venture capitalist whose firm implemented a “no –holes policy” passed on an investment in Uber. This person said Kalanick didn’t click with any of the partners and that he acted like he was “God’s gift.”

Other investors struggle with the decision to invest in personalities over returns.

“I want not to invest in jerks,” says former Silicon Valley investor, Eileen Burbidge. Burbidge is now a VC at London’s Passion Capital, which has invested in startups like Lulu and Go Cardless.  “Personally I believe life is too short. [But] I have wondered if this is actually a bad philosophy as an investor. I’d like to think not but I’m supposed to back founders for the best ROI, not personality.”

I want not to invest in jerks …But I have wondered if this is actually a bad philosophy as an investor. I’m supposed to back founders for the best ROI.

Mark Suster, a Los Angeles-based investor, also isn’t sure what to make of jerks in business. He lists “integrity” as a bonus characteristic when it comes to top entrepreneurs’ DNA.

“I believe that integrity and honesty are very important to most venture capital investors,” he wrote on his blog, Both Sides of the Table. ” Unfortunately, I don’t believe that they are required to make a lot of money.”

Many agree that being an overly aggressive entrepreneur tends to pan out.

“As much as [Travis] is inspirational, he is controversial,” a former colleague of Kalanick’s said. “If he were less brash, I don’t think he would get half as far as he did.”

Adds another Kalanick acquaintance: “There is absolutely no way [Uber] would have gotten where it is without Travis and his arrogance. Not without him being like, ‘I’m going to take over the world.’ He has the Steve Jobs mentality that ‘It’s my way or the highway.'”

One person who firmly believes you can be nice and succeed is Paul Graham. He runs top startup accelerator Y Combinator and he’s made Sutton’s “no –hole” rule popular in tech. He has backed billion-dollar startups such as Dropbox and Airbnb.

paul graham kevin roseGraham says well-known founders like Jobs and Bezos can’t be judged by their terror tales. “Famous founders who seem to be –holes might not be,” Graham told Business Insider via email. “I’m not saying they are or they aren’t, just that it is extremely hard to tell what a famous person is really like. You can’t judge them based on anecdotal evidence, which is all you ever have.”

Graham chooses not to invest in jerks because he doesn’t want to be around them. Investors and founders end up spending a lot of time together. Getting rid of one or the other can be more difficult than getting a divorce from a spouse.

“The reason we tried not to invest in jerks initially was sheer self-indulgence,” says Graham. “We were going to have to spend a lot of time with whoever we funded, and we didn’t want to have to spend time with people we couldn’t stand. Later we realized it had been a clever move to filter out jerks, because it made the alumni network really tight. We’ve funded over 630 startups now, and when founders of different startups meet there is an automatic level of trust and willingness to help one another. Much more than alumni of the same college for example.”

His take: Be nice and you can find success.

“It’s certainly possible to build a multi-billion dollar startup without being a jerk,” Graham says. “We’ve funded several, and the founders are all good people.  In fact, based on what I’ve seen so far, the good people have the advantage over the jerks. Probably because to get really big, a company has to have a sense of mission, and the good people are more likely to have an authentic one, rather than just being motivated by money or power.”

The Silicon Valley Jerk Conundrum

Most people probably have no idea who Jeanette Symons was as a person, or even her name. Yet, she became one of Silicon Valley’s most famous entrepreneurs. She tragically died in the crash of her Lear Jet with her adopted son, some years ago. She is right up there with Steve Jobs in terms of her accomplishments, her intellect, and her utterly horrible personality. I worked for Jeanette. This article from the San Francisco Chronicle is an excellent exploration of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, and the “a**hole” conundrum of their eccentricities that can also make them highly successful. There has also been a recent major controversy about SV entrepreneurs arrogance and insensitivity to others. This is definitely NOT Canadian. My fear is that Canadians are not prepared for it. My students know that I have experienced this personally in my Silicon Valley career numerous times, most notably with the late Jeanette of Ascend Communications, who was a notorious asshole like Steve Jobs. Not easy to reconcile it, other than to live with it.


The Silicon Valley Jerk Conundrum

Most people probably have no idea who Jeanette Symons was as a person, or even her name. Yet, she became one of Silicon Valley’s most famous entrepreneurs. She tragically died in the crash of her Lear Jet with her adopted son, some years ago. She is right up there with Steve Jobs in terms of her accomplishments, her intellect, and her utterly horrible personality. I worked for Jeanette.  This article from the San Francisco Chronicle is an excellent exploration of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, and the “a**hole” conundrum of their eccentricities that can also make them highly successful. There has also been a recent major controversy about SV entrepreneurs arrogance and insensitivity to others. This is definitely NOT Canadian. My fear is that Canadians are not prepared for it. My students know that I have experienced this personally in my Silicon Valley career numerous times, most notably with the late Jeanette, founder of Ascend Communications, who was a notorious asshole like Steve Jobs. Not easy to reconcile it, other than to live with it. Human Resources people are an utter waste of time in situations like this. They have no idea what to do, can do nothing, and simply sit around waiting for Godot to arrive.  It all seems to work and few leave so long as the value of the stock options continue  to appreciate.

Why So Many Tech Founders Who Are Jerks Become Insanely

Rich And Successful

Alyson Shontell, provided by
Published 5:45 am, Saturday, January 18, 2014

Steve Jobs

“Startup DNA” is the idea that the world’s best entrepreneurs, like Steve Jobs and Jeff Bezos, have some inherent talent they were born with that made them successful.

The DNA is comprised of characteristics like “resilience” and “ability to accept risk.”

Another characteristic many top entrepreneurs share is arrogance. Or worse, just being a huge jerk. 

Recently, I met with a lot of people to discuss rising Silicon Valley star, Travis Kalanick.He’s the CEO of Uber, and his car-sharing service was recently valued at $3.4 billion. Friends have compared him to great entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison.

But Kalanick is a polarizing figure. He’s frequently described as both “awesome” and a jerk.

“Sometimes,” one acquaintance said of Kalanick, “–holes create great businesses.”

Another person noted how strange that concept was. How can people both both marvel atand dislike Kalanick?

“If Travis Kalanick is the Michael Jordan poster that young entrepreneurs have hanging on their walls, that’s sad,” this person said. “Being a jerk isn’t ‘awesome’ or ‘badass.’

Kalanick did not respond to a request for comment.

Outside of Silicon Valley, most people would agree. But inside, arrogance runs rampant and investors seem to reward ruthless behavior with piles of cash.

There are numerous examples of founders who have had moments of terrible behavior that later became infamous. The founders might not be jerks all the time, of course. Everyone has moments when they behave boorishly. But sometimes the stories are so unbelievable, it can leave a lasting negative impressive of the person — that whether criticism is deserved or not.

For instance, Mark Zuckerberg, who is now worth about $20 billion, famously ousted his friend Eduardo Saverin from Facebook. He also stole his business idea from the Winklevoss twins. “Yah, I’m going to f– them,” he told a friend over IM about the pair. “Probably in the ear.”

Snapchat CEO Evan Spiegel is in the middle of a lawsuit with his former Stanford friend, Reggie Brown. Spiegel lost his temper with Brown and locked him out of the app shortly after it launched. Once, Spiegel was so angry with his parents, he reportedly cut himself out of family photos.

Twitter’s co-founders back-stabbed each other repeatedly: Founder Noah Glass was booted out of the company. Ev Williams and Jack Dorsey were both given, and then stripped of, the CEO title. And Jeff Bezos, who runs Amazon, wreaks havoc in his organization by sending a single-character email: “?”

Even Steve Jobs, one of the world’s most-praised entrepreneurs, was said to have two sides. Jobs’ biographer, Walter Isaacson, portrayed the late Apple CEO as “Good Steve” and “Bad Steve.” An example: Jobs once stormed into a meeting and called everyone “f–ing dickless –holes.”

Robert Sutton spent a lot of time conducting research for his book, “No –hole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One that Isn’t,” What he found was disappointing.

“Even people who worked with Jobs told me that they’d seen him make people cry many times, but that 80 percent of the time he was right, ” Sutton said. “It is troubling that there’s this notion in our culture that if you’re a winner, it’s okay to be an –hole.”

It is troubling that there’s this notion in our culture that if you’re a winner, it’s okay to be an –hole.

14 Weird Open-Ended Behavioral Job Interview Questions


Over the last year, a number of my UBC Faculty of Management students have asked me about so-called behavioral interview questions, which seem to be the new norm in job interviews.  Behavioral interview questions or role playing situations are designed to get the interviewee off balance and to elicit more revealing responses about the character, ethics and personality of the candidate.

Frankly, I had a couple of situations where I was fairly convinced that the student would face some kind of awkward interview question. At least so far, that has not occurred.  There was one situation with a prominent international commercial bank, where the student was asked to role play with seven other job candidates, she had never seen before.  Nevertheless, job candidates should anticipate more of these “behavioral” questions, be prepared to think on their feet, and develop creative responses to these behavioral questions.  Most important of all, students and alumni job seekers should keep their feet firmly on the ground of “who they are.” This means being themselves, honest and straight. That will come through in any interview. If that doesn’t work, it probably wasn’t a good fit for you anyway.

Following are 14 of the weirdest questions known to have been asked of job candidates at Apple, Google, Dell and a number of other companies.  My recommendation for dealing with these questions is to recognize that they are in many cases unanswerable. Some can be answered with your personal experience, but most will require you to think on your feet.  Today, I had an example on Quora, a site designed for asking and answering questions of any kind.  The question was, “How many people work in technology in Silicon Valley?”  I decided to reply, “About half of them.”  This was actually an answer I remembered from Pope John XXIII in the 1960’s, when asked how many people worked at the Vatican…  This is what you need to do.

Amazon asks: “Jeff Bezos walks into your office and says you can have a million dollars to launch your best entrepreneurial idea. What is it?”

Amazon asks: "Jeff Bezos walks into your office and says you can have a million dollars to launch your best entrepreneurial idea.  What is it?"

Reuters

MasterCard asks: “Can you say: ‘Peter Pepper Picked a Pickled Pepper’ and cross-sell a washing machine at the same time?”

Dell asks: “What songs best describe your work ethic?”

Jiffy Software asks: “Have you ever stolen a pen from work?”

Google asks: “How many cows are in Canada?”

Kimberly-Clark asks: “If you had turned your cell phone to silent, and it rang really loudly despite it being on silent, what would you tell me?”

LivingSocial asks: “What’s your favorite song? Perform it for us now.”

LivingSocial asks: "What's your favorite song?  Perform it for us now."

Shutterstock

Zappos asked: “What superhero would you be and would you dress up at work given the chance?”

Zappos asked: "What superhero would you be and would you dress up at work given the chance?"

Warner Bros. and Melia Robinson/Business Insider

Gallop asked: “What do you think about when you are alone in your car?”

Gallop asked: "What do you think about when you are alone in your car?"

Andre Vieira/Getty Images

JetBlue asked: “How many quarters would you need to reach the height of the Empire State building?”

Clark Construction Group asked candidates for an engineer position: “A penguin walks through that door right now wearing a sombrero. What does he say and why is he here?”

PriceWaterhouse Coopers asked: “My wife and I are going on vacation, where would you recommend?”

Bain and Company asked: “Estimate how many windows are in New York.”

Apple asks: “What kind of animal would you be and why?”

Apple asks: "What kind of animal would you be and why?"

REUTERS/Stringer

Now…

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/weird-interview-questions-from-apple-google-amazon-2013-9?op=1#ixzz2gF6caJLk

Google Buys a D-Wave Quantum Computer

Earlier this week, I was advised by a VC friend in Vancouver to expect another blockbuster announcement from D-Wave. And so it has happened. As if to stem any further skepticism and debate about D-Wave’s quantum computing technology, Google today announced that it has bought a D-Wave quantum computing system, in a partnership with NASA and Lockheed Martin Aerospace. This is the second major sale of a D-Wave system, and further evidence that this is not simple tire kicking by a group of ivory tower scientists.


dwave chip

D-Wave 512-Qubit Bonded Processor – Recent Generation

Earlier this week, I was advised by a VC friend in Vancouver to expect another blockbuster announcement from D-Wave. And so it has happened. As if to stem any further skepticism and debate about D-Wave’s quantum computing technology, Google today announced that it has bought a D-Wave quantum computing system, in a partnership with NASA and Lockheed Martin Aerospace. This is the second major sale of a D-Wave system, and further evidence that this is not simple tire kicking by a group of ivory tower scientists.

Of particular note to me personally, was the growing significance of Vancouver as a site for a exceedingly advanced startup like D-Wave. In my previous post on this subject, I questioned whether a company in such a rarified area could attract the necessary personnel here.  Twenty years ago, when Mobile Data International started, I was one of four Americans to cast our fates to the wind and move to Canada to join MDI. At that time, we were seen as completely out of our minds. Vancouver had no attraction or other high tech industry companies worthy of note.  Today, Vancouver is seen as an World Class City, and one of the most livable. This may be one of the most important issues in favour of a growing high tech industry in Vancouver.

By way of example, it was also announced in parallel today that two key people from Silicon Graphics, the precursor in some respects to D-Wave, Bo Ewald, former SGI CEO, and Steve Cakebread, former SGI financial officer, have joined D-Wave.  Apparently, Ewald will lead D-Wave’s U.S. subsidiary company, and Cakebread has relocated to Vancouver.  If you have ever seen a bottle of Cakebread Cellars Chardonnay in a BC Liquor store, it is the same Steve Cakebread that is responsible.  More importantly, Vancouver may now be able to attract the kind of talent needed for companies like D-Wave.

Google and NASA are forming a laboratory to study artificial intelligence by means of computers that use the unusual properties of quantum physics. Their quantum computer, which performs complex calculations thousands of times faster than existing supercomputers, is expected to be in active use in the third quarter of this year.

The Quantum Artificial Intelligence Lab, as the entity is called, will focus on machine learning, which is the way computers take note of patterns of information to improve their outputs. Personalized Internet search and predictions of traffic congestion based on GPS data are examples of machine learning. The field is particularly important for things like facial or voice recognition, biological behavior, or the management of very large and complex systems.

“If we want to create effective environmental policies, we need better models of what’s happening to our climate,” Google said in a blog postannouncing the partnership. “Classical computers aren’t well suited to these types of creative problems.”

Google said it had already devised machine-learning algorithms that work inside the quantum computer, which is made by D-Wave Systems of Burnaby, British Columbia. One could quickly recognize information, saving power on mobile devices, while another was successful at sorting out bad or mislabeled data. The most effective methods for using quantum computation, Google said, involved combining the advanced machines with its clouds of traditional computers.

Google and NASA bought in cooperation with the Universities Space Research Association, a nonprofit research corporation that works with NASA and others to advance space science and technology. Outside researchers will be invited to the lab as well.

This year D-Wave sold its first commercial quantum computer to Lockheed Martin. Lockheed officials said the computer would be used for the test and measurement of things like jet aircraft designs, or the reliability of satellite systems.

The D-Wave computer works by framing complex problems in terms of optimal outcomes. The classic example of this type of problem is figuring out the most efficient way a traveling salesman can visit 10 customers, but real-world problems now include hundreds of such variables and contingencies. D-Wave’s machine frames the problem in terms of energy states, and uses quantum physics to rapidly determine an outcome that satisfies the variables with the least use of energy.

In tests last September, an independent researcher found that for some types of problems the quantum computer was 3,600 times faster than traditional supercomputers. According to a D-Wave official, the machine performed even better in Google’s tests, which involved 500 variables with different constraints.

“The tougher, more complex ones had better performance,” said Colin Williams, D-Wave’s director of business development. “For most problems, it was 11,000 times faster, but in the more difficult 50 percent, it was 33,000 times faster. In the top 25 percent, it was 50,000 times faster.” Google declined to comment, aside from the blog post.

The machine Google and NASA will use makes use of the interactions of 512 quantum bits, or qubits, to determine optimization. They plan to upgrade the machine to 2,048 qubits when this becomes available, probably within the next year or two. That machine could be exponentially more powerful.

Google did not say how it might deploy a quantum computer into its existing global network of computer-intensive data centers, which are among the world’s largest. D-Wave, however, intends eventually for its quantum machine to hook into cloud computing systems, doing the exceptionally hard problems that can then be finished off by regular servers.

Potential applications include finance, health care, and national security, said Vern Brownell, D-Wave’s chief executive. “The long-term vision is the quantum cloud, with a few high-end systems in the back end,” he said. “You could use it to train an algorithm that goes into a phone, or do lots of simulations for a financial institution.”

Mr. Brownell, who founded a computer server company, was also the chief technical officer at Goldman Sachs. Goldman is an investor in D-Wave, with Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon.com. Amazon Web Services is another global cloud, which rents data storage, computing, and applications to thousands of companies.

This month D-Wave established an American company, considered necessary for certain types of sales of national security technology to the United States government.