LinkedIn Blog

Via @linkedin on Twitter- "Hey guys, this is part of the planned cutover we initiated oer the wknd. http://bit.ly/fYD800 Sorry for the inconvenience. Stay tuned." "We continue to tune our site and optimize site performance following our recent cutover to the new Los Angeles data center. Thanks for your patience during the transition. Stay tuned. – Dec 13, 2010" http://blog.linkedin.com/2010/12/11/linkedin-data-center-la/

Could be worse: http://blog.linkedin.com/2010/04/08/linkedin-ninja-job-title/ Soon to be followed by "pirate", I expect, if this goes on ... (The LI blog also graphs evangelist-vs-guru; the latter is on the outs. No units in either graph.)

I wouldn't discount that last reason. There's some research suggesting that friendships between coworkers can greatly increase worker engagement, productivity, and satisfaction.[0][1][2] And a self-report study from LinkedIn suggests that workers perceive workplace friendships as beneficial for both themselves and their work, for what that's worth.[3] Of course, it can also blow up in your face and do the opposite, occasionally slowing down more productive workers as they match their speed to those of their less productive friends when it comes to individual work.[4] That study looked at fruitpickers, but it could be relevant to the tech industry as well. Paradoxically, at least in the US, we're seeing a trend towards fewer workplace friendships and greater detachment.[5] I/O (industrial and organizational) psychologists have a lot of interesting interpretations for those trends. Almost across the board, employment is far more transitory today than in past decades, so there's less pressure to invest time in meaningful relationships at work. And we're so connected nowadays that it's easier than ever to preserve relationships in some form (regardless of whether they're preserved, or we just believe they are), so we don't feel the need to generate replacements as much. Having done a lot of freelance work myself for a couple of years, if I'm being entirely honest with myself, this is one of the disadvantages at times. I enjoy getting to work on different projects, but there's…

http://blog.linkedin.com/2015/06/17/measuring-gender-diversity-with-da… > Technology companies are generally considered to be some of the most sought-after employers in the world. We have an inherent “home field advantage” when it comes to recruiting the largest and richest talent pools of our most critical position: software engineers. However, despite this advantage, our data indicates that software engineering teams in tech have proportionally fewer women than several non-tech industries; namely healthcare, retail, government, education, and nonprofits. For example, a typical software engineering team in a healthcare company is likely to be 32% women, compared to 20% in technology. While these non-tech industries employ significantly fewer software engineers versus technology, their teams tend to exhibit greater gender parity. You don't end up with 50% women in other industries with basically the same role without some sort of reason.

>Thanks to such pressures and hard work, many Asian-Americans do end up in top universities—but not as many as their high-school performance would seem to merit. Some Asians allege that the Ivy Leagues have put an implicit limit on the number of Asians they will admit. They point to Asians’ soaring academic achievements and to the work of Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Walton Radford of Princeton, who looked at the data on admissions and concluded that Asian-Americans need 140 SAT points out of 1,600 more than whites to get a place at a private university, and that blacks need 310 fewer points. Yet in California, where public universities are allowed to use economic but not racial criteria in admissions, 41% of Berkeley’s enrolments in 2014 were Asian-Americans and at the California Institute of Technology 44% were (see chart). The picture painted by this article of the difficulties (or lack thereof) faced by whites in securing admission to elite private universities like Harvard, Yale, or Columbia is in stark contrast to the one painted by Ron Unz three years ago in his thorough analysis of university admissions policies. While Unz did indeed find ample evidence of quotas restricting the admission of Asians, he also found evidence of what appears to be affirmative action favoring Jews: >Most of the other Ivy League schools appear to follow a fairly similar trajectory. Between 1980 and 2011, the official figures indicate that non-Jewish white enrollment dropped by 63…

One of the most fascinating aspects of this has been watching LinkedIn's response. The latest blog post is an example of 'reassurance through obscurity' where a large number of words say very little. http://blog.linkedin.com/2012/06/09/an-update-on-taking-steps-to-prote… "First, it’s important to know that compromised passwords were not published with corresponding email logins. At the time they were initially published, the vast majority of those passwords remained hashed, i.e. encoded, but unfortunately a subset of the passwords was decoded. Again, we are not aware of any member information being published at any time in connection with the list of stolen passwords. The only information published was the passwords themselves." Look, either LinkedIn knows that rest of the information was stolen or they don't. If it was stolen then people need to be told, not fobbed off with this 'only the passwords were published'. The publishing of the passwords is irrelevant. What was taken? The other possibility is that LinkedIn doesn't know what was taken. "Under this team’s leadership, one of our major initiatives was the transition from a password database system that hashed passwords, i.e. provided one layer of encoding, to a system that both hashed and salted the passwords, i.e. provided an extra layer of protection that is a widely recognized best practice within the industry." That doesn't address the issue of which algorithm is being used. At worst it…

LinkedIn - Mountain View, CA I'm hiring a team to help develop a new user-facing Data Product built on top of LinkedIn's massive dataset of 65 million member profiles, connection graph, recommendations, company database, and other rich information sources - both internal and external. I described a bit about what it is like working on our team earlier this month on the LinkedIn blog: http://blog.linkedin.com/2010/04/20/linkedin-data-scientist-skomoroch/ To accelerate the application process, feel free to ping me directly (info in my HN profile). * Senior Software Engineer - Analytics Applications http://www.linkedin.com/jobs?viewJob=&jobId=937403 Front end engineer working directly with me & the Data team. You will be wiring up an application and UI that serves millions of users, pulling data from sources like Voldemort and relational databases. Looking for solid developers who can quickly crank out a solid web app in Java, Rails, or Django. Should be someone who iterates quickly and thinks about scale. Interest in information design / interaction is a plus. * Site Operations Engineer (Ruby on Rails) http://www.linkedin.com/jobs?viewJob=&jobId=902262 Another role that might be of interest to HN readers: You will work closely with the Light Engineering Development team to configure, deploy, and monitor production-ready applications using any or many of: apache, nginx, memcached, mongrel, thin, Passenger Phusion, rabbitmq, redis, sphinx, and anything else it takes to…

We seem to be oscillating between "key value stores are the way!" and "relational databases are the way!" Both have their places. If my notes were read as seeming to advocate the end of relational databases, please excuse me because that was certainly not my intent. Of course all of those companies use relational databases. Often they're the best tools for the job and in an IT landscape as large as their respective setups, of course they're the right tool for several jobs. But they've also got problem domains where they've decided RDBMSes are not the best tools for the job, which was my point to begin with. This thread started off with the assertion, basically, that if you weren't using a RDBMS to store everything, you probably didn't know anything about databases and I feel like we've (including the original poster) been slowly narrowing in on something closer to reality. As for the examples on the non-RDBMS side, BigTable, SimpleDB, Voldemort (+) and, well, the guy that I met with last week that wrote eBay Germany's search system and told me they had their own non-RDBMS storage system. + http://blog.linkedin.com/2009/03/20/project-voldemort-scaling-simple-s…

Like https://www.reddit.com/ they made their logo (temporarily?) black and probably related to https://blog.linkedin.com/2020/may/june/16/Working-Together-to-Create-…

Just so you know, LinkedIn released something similar: https://blog.linkedin.com/2018/february/7/rock-your-resume-with-resume…

(fun fact, not strictly important here) - 8.2.k was added quite recently [1], likely triggered by the HiQ case. [1] https://blog.linkedin.com/2017/april/10/updates-to-our-terms-of-servic… [2] Here https://github.com/tosdr/tosback2/blob/master/crawl/linkedin.com/Terms… is an older version of the ToS, which one can read while enjoying the irony of a crawler focused on scrapping ToS

Ah, yes, @dpp, creator of the Scala web framework Lift: https://blog.linkedin.com/2009/06/15/video-linkedin-scala-tech-talk (Video is offline) To which Twitter's Nick Kallen replied on stage, incredulously, "... I don't think that's correct."

This is not really "Another Day, Another Hack" per the title. As the article states, these are data from the LinkedIn breach of 2012. The response from LinkedIn is here: https://blog.linkedin.com/2016/05/18/protecting-our-members

You might want to check out LinkedIn Lookup: http://blog.linkedin.com/2015/08/19/introducing-linkedin-lookup-easily…

This has less information than the numbers Google, Facebook, and LinkedIn released. There manager vs non manager breakdowns but what about tech vs not tech? I'm fairly disappointed to see so little information from Amazon. http://www.google.com/diversity/at-google.html http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2014/06/building-a-more-diverse-facebook/ http://blog.linkedin.com/2014/06/12/linkedins-workforce-diversity/

https://intro.linkedin.com/ Send your mail to them to let them rewrite the html to insert LinkedIn information within the message. Intro shows you LinkedIn profiles in your iPhone Mail app. http://blog.linkedin.com/2013/10/23/announcing-linkedin-intro/

This reminds me a lot of LinkedIn's clever scheme to MITM your IMAP traffic: http://blog.linkedin.com/2013/10/23/announcing-linkedin-intro/

Also see the original blog post on LinkedIn: http://blog.linkedin.com/2013/12/11/buzzwords-2013/ posted here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6914214

I'm still not able to believe if I read that right. Does LinkedIn really re-routes your emails to their servers in their entirety? I looked at their announcement and video at http://blog.linkedin.com/2013/10/23/announcing-linkedin-intro/. There is NOT even a hint of disclosure that they are doing this. I can imagine 10 ways to achieve the similar user experience without re-routing entire emails. So if this is true, LinkedIn really really fundamentally screwed up with customer trust.

Seriously? http://blog.linkedin.com/2011/01/11/open-source-linkedin-kafka/ http://blog.linkedin.com/2009/03/20/project-voldemort-scaling-simple-s…

If I remember correctly they were also not using a salt. They stated that "members whose passwords have not been compromised benefit from the enhanced security we just recently put in place, which includes hashing and salting of our current password databases."[1] [1] http://blog.linkedin.com/2012/06/06/linkedin-member-passwords-compromi…

I didn't get it but I changed my password as soon as the leak was announced. When I logged in this morning, there is an "announcement" that says "Important notice about password security" that leads to a blog post here: http://blog.linkedin.com/2012/06/07/taking-steps-to-protect-our-member…

They have added a blog post with an update http://blog.linkedin.com/2012/06/06/linkedin-member-passwords-compromi… Unfortunately they dont tell when they started salting the password and if they've found (and fixed) the hole that permitted the database leak!

huh, I have a linked in account that I don't check often and my password was on that list. Luckily it was specific to linkedin. I don't believe this is just a small percentage of users. Oh and I never received an email like the blog states (http://blog.linkedin.com/2012/06/06/linkedin-member-passwords-compromi… odd...

I suspected that was the answer but this blog post http://blog.linkedin.com/2012/06/06/linkedin-member-passwords-compromi… mentions that they are salting the passwords.

It looks like that is what LinkedIn claims to have done. http://blog.linkedin.com/2012/06/06/linkedin-member-passwords-compromi…

I don't understand your line of reasoning. Aren't rainbow tables just another kind of brute force attack? They just allow you to share the brute force across a large number of passwords. Salts increase the effective length of the password, and per-password salts eliminate rainbow tables and make brute forcing harder as well. What am I missing? --- Linkedin now says their passwords are salted, so we could change our passwords now even if I was right. But they're also claiming that all passwords are now salted. http://blog.linkedin.com/2012/06/06/linkedin-member-passwords-compromi… In any case, I'm enjoying this conversation, thanks.

We've just posted a response about what we do and don't do. http://blog.linkedin.com/2012/06/06/mobile-calendar-feature/ Important point, all data is shared of SSL.

My LinkedIn rant: A year ago LinkedIn released the "Publications" section for your profile: http://blog.linkedin.com/2010/10/18/linkedin-profile-sections/ Now you can list your academic papers on your profile, awesome. The problem being that YOU are listed in the "first author" position on any paper you submit. Author-order being very important, this is a major issue that should have been caught in the spec stage. It hasn't been fixed in over a year.

Yes. Here is a link to the linkedin blog: http://blog.linkedin.com/2011/07/24/apply-with-linkedin/