Apptimize -- rationalist startup hiring engineers

68 nancyhua 12 January 2015 08:22PM

Apptimize is a 2-year old startup closely connected with the rationalist community, one of the first founded by CFAR alumni.  We make “lean” possible for mobile apps -- our software lets mobile developers update or A/B test their apps in minutes, without submitting to the App Store. Our customers include big companies such as Nook and Ebay, as well as Top 10 apps such as Flipagram. When companies evaluate our product against competitors, they’ve chosen us every time.


We work incredibly hard, and we’re striving to build the strongest engineering team in the Bay Area. If you’re a good developer, we have a lot to offer.


Team

  • Our team of 14 includes 7 MIT alumni, 3 ex-Googlers, 1 Wharton MBA, 1 CMU CS alum, 1 Stanford alum, 2 MIT Masters, 1 MIT Ph. D. candidate, and 1 “20 Under 20” Thiel Fellow. Our CEO was also just named to the Forbes “30 Under 30”

  • David Salamon, Anna Salamon’s brother, built much of our early product

  • Our CEO is Nancy Hua, while our Android lead is "20 under 20" Thiel Fellow James Koppel. They met after James spoke at the Singularity Summit

  • HP:MoR is required reading for the entire company

  • We evaluate candidates on curiosity even before evaluating them technically

  • Seriously, our team is badass. Just look

Self Improvement

  • You will have huge autonomy and ownership over your part of the product. You can set up new infrastructure and tools, expense business products and services, and even subcontract some of your tasks if you think it's a good idea

  • You will learn to be a more goal-driven agent, and understand the impact of everything you do on the rest of the business

  • Access to our library of over 50 books and audiobooks, and the freedom to purchase more

  • Everyone shares insights they’ve had every week

  • Self-improvement is so important to us that we only hire people committed to it. When we say that it’s a company value, we mean it

The Job

  • Our mobile engineers dive into the dark, undocumented corners of iOS and Android, while our backend crunches data from billions of requests per day

  • Engineers get giant monitors, a top-of-the-line MacBook pro, and we’ll pay for whatever else is needed to get the job done

  • We don’t demand prior experience, but we do demand the fearlessness to jump outside your comfort zone and job description. That said, our website uses AngularJS, jQuery, and nginx, while our backend uses AWS, Java (the good parts), and PostgreSQL

  • We don’t have gratuitous perks, but we have what counts: Free snacks and catered meals, an excellent health and dental plan, and free membership to a gym across the street

  • Seriously, working here is awesome. As one engineer puts it, “we’re like a family bent on taking over the world”


If you’re interested, send some Bayesian evidence that you’re a good match to jobs@apptimize.com

Comments (9)
Comment author: Epiphany 21 October 2012 09:41:51PM *  1 point [-]

Thanks for your reply, it makes me feel much better and I'm glad and impressed we're not annoyed at each other, especially considering I can also be easily annoyed.

Oh! Yay! (:

I think a lot of people can understand being alienated but I don't know what the rationalist solution is.

It seems to me that many on LW are alienated, and it's resulting in the most ridiculous clusterf... People desire to quickly jump to the conclusion that the person they're talking to is not worth talking to (I think this might apply more to new people than others)... because they are so alienated and have to do something about it, but there's this wild mix of causes of annoyance and it just makes a mess. There are older users who are spitting out logical fallacies, newer users who are clueless, new users who are sharp, old users who are sharp of course... and sometimes one annoys one's self (which is what happened to me just now). And of course if people DON'T ignore annoying users, or at least tell them that they're doing it wrong, they're encouraged to stick around without improving the annoying behavior... but this is wrought with peril because as you have seen, if I am the one who made the mistake, and I tell you that you've made a mistake, I get to look like an idiot, and you get to feel bad for no reason. Many times, when somebody points out my mistake, it's the same problem - they made a mistake but didn't notice it, possibly because they're so annoyed with the last 10 people that annoyed them that they're not giving me the benefit of the doubt. Occasionally they do point out some mistake I made, so that's good. But it seems like people here are a bit too apt to reach for the 2 x 4.

That's part of why I like HPMOR- Harry is like an alien trying to make a single friend. In his case, he's alone because he's superior to everyone and thus can't rely on anyone else, which may be some cold comfort, but that wasn't exactly my situation...

What was your exact situation?

I am an alien for sure. I relate to not being able to rely on anyone else, but it is not comforting that I'm usually better at figuring things out than those around me. I have plenty of friends but the friendships are one-sided: I am understanding and emotionally supportive to them, but they do not understand me deeply enough so they aren't really useful for me to talk to about my thoughts and feelings. I've noticed that most of the other aliens haven't mastered staying rational when they've discovered an interesting alien they might get close to. This has ruined the vast majority of my attempts to get to know other aliens. I used to have a problem with staying rational when meeting other aliens myself - but that's not my problem anymore. Now my problem is that nearly everybody else is going about it in dysfunctional ways and I'm burnt out on that. I have no idea how to solve this, so I'm just walking away from that catastrophe and I've decided to fill my time up with group projects for now.

Comment author: nancyhua 23 October 2012 08:11:52AM 2 points [-]

People desire to quickly jump to the conclusion that the person they're talking to is not worth talking to

I think I especially have this problem on the internet. For me part of it is I can't see the person and my mental model for "random internet person" is a jerky male idiot so I assume this is who's talking if I disagree with the remark (if I agree, then my mental model shows a smart, nice person). This mental model has not been accurate so I've been trying to imagine these internet personalities as more normal humans so I don't end up saying something I wouldn't say in real life. Not to imply that I am always super charming in real life!

I think I generally got along well with nerds or artsy people but when I entered my teens and got increasingly judgmental I also became awkward and shy with people whose virtues weren't immediately obvious to me. If I thought you were smart or talented, we'd be friends right away, but if I thought you weren't, then I just had nothing to say. The set of people I judged to be worthy decreased to single digits for a few years- others seemed subhuman to me, which is ridiculous considering I was just a kid and didn't know anything about almost all the people I judged. Also, ignoring me was a sign of idiocy bc it should be obvious to intelligent people that I was awesome; thus it could be tricky to be judged positively by me.

I became a lot better adjusted as a result of nerd camps, gifted programs, and selective art classes, I think partly because I got used to assuming everyone around me was a real human being worth talking to. I'm getting better adjusted all the time, but I'm still judgmental. So, unlike Harry, I wasn't an alien to many people because I was smarter than them; I was an alien to many people because I was judgmental and egotistical. In fiction, judgmental people fear being judged themselves and have some gaping insecurity, which is more reason for me to try to not be that way.

If you're doing group projects, that sounds like you're not super alienated. In past group projects, sometimes one part of the group would say I was a great collaborator while the other part would say I had trouble communicating. I think this was because I highly favored the opinions of people I deemed cool, which was probably not someone less successful than me (normalizing somewhat for individual situations), and almost certainly not some random I'd never even met. Why try to win over people who "don't matter"? Is trying to have mass appeal being Slytherin, or is it just being more compassionate and empathetic, relating better with your fellow humans? Either way, I only recently decided to make an effort to be more like my one friend who absolutely everyone loves and respects. Everyone wants to work with him and likes him, whereas mainly nerds want to work with me. For a time, I thought that was what I wanted, but often you have to cooperate with people you wouldn't normally choose for your team (and vice versa), so even from a purely pragmatic perspective I am trying to not be alienated from anyone.

Instead of judging someone's perspective as boring, I'm trying to use my imagination to think about things from their perspective more, and also communicate my perspective more effectively even if I think it could be a waste of time. I also remind myself that many people more talented than me are still friends with me, so I should try to learn from them. I think my most effective form of communication is writing, which is suboptimal because most strangers don't want to read my lengthy musings, so I am trying to practice to communicate more effectively with all types of people in person. I should probably also practice writing with less words...

Comment author: Epiphany 21 October 2012 08:19:31PM *  0 points [-]

The article itself says that lesswrongers were part of the data set but I didn't take this to mean this was about lesswrong in general.

I read the subject line for the OP but the title of the article was so similar I didn't notice it wasn't exactly the same. Sigh. I think I've been had by change blindness. (There's an interesting LW article I'm being reminded of right now.). My title oversight explains most of the confusion here.

What are the reasoning skills you identified as lacking in my comments?

None. It was perceived lack of motivation to read things that prompted that. This perception is fixed now. I'm sorry about that.

Maybe you're annoyed I didn't get your child/rapist example?

I am constantly alienated and usually somewhere near my limit for alienation. Often past it, often just below it. If I seem annoyed, that is probably to blame more than anything. I'm perma-annoyed.

I want to know if I'm being irrational, that's the whole point of this.

If you want to continue after my oversight with the title, I will engage, but I should probably start over and re-focus. What specific perception(s) do you want to discuss?

Comment author: nancyhua 21 October 2012 08:44:42PM 0 points [-]

Thanks for your reply, it makes me feel much better and I'm glad and impressed we're not annoyed at each other, especially considering I can also be easily annoyed. I think a lot of people can understand being alienated but I don't know what the rationalist solution is. For me, it was one of those things that was a feedback loop and thus really hard to get out of. That's part of why I like HPMOR- Harry is like an alien trying to make a single friend. In his case, he's alone because he's superior to everyone and thus can't rely on anyone else, which may be some cold comfort, but that wasn't exactly my situation...

Comment author: Epiphany 21 October 2012 06:55:36PM *  -2 points [-]

I hadn't realized LessWrongers were being called cold and calculating.

Really? There's an article link in the OP. The Wall Street Journal did an article on LessWrong. Why don't you read it?

Despite Hanson writing some libertarian things, my impression was the plurality of lesswrongers subscribed to socialism or liberalism. Is this erroneous?

The article links to a survey that LessWrongers did and so does the OP.

I see you're new here. FYI people are not going to take kindly to it if you comment on threads without reading the OP and/or closely related materials (such as the WSJ link and survey in the OP). This is because a lot of the people here are very well read. Maybe you are, too, and can understand this. They also don't take kindly to it if people haven't endeavored to read about reasoning skills. Maybe you have already read some books on things like logic and biases or have read the sequences or something. If not, I'll let you know that you need familiarity with these types of subjects if you want to fit in.

Comment author: nancyhua 21 October 2012 07:33:53PM *  0 points [-]

I had read the article extract included in the OP, didn't look at the link. The article itself says that lesswrongers were part of the data set but I didn't take this to mean this was about lesswrong in general.

What are the reasoning skills you identified as lacking in my comments? I clicked on all the links, certainly. The WSJ refers to the yourmorals and I had clicked on that but didn't think it was lesswrong because it's offsite and seems inaccessible. My information on the plurality being liberal/socialist is from a 2011 lesswrong census I read on this site, although I may be misremembering.

Is the point you're disagreeing with that calling libertarians "cold and calculating" does not equal calling lesswrongers this? I agree that it's calling a subset of lesswrongers "cold and calculating"- the libertarian subset.

I think to a certain audience I would describe myself as libertarian, although not to the lesswrong audience. My impression is that in general liberals are stereotyped as emotional, educated hippies whereas conservatives are stereotyped as selfish, stupid traditionalists. I had less idea what libertarians were stereotyped as, probably since there are less of them so people don't really bother.

I want to know if I'm being irrational, that's the whole point of this. But I'm unsure how to interpret your words or your tone. Is it a language thing, like you're saying specific libertarian lesswrongers were called cold and calculating but I'm saying lesswrong as a community is not called this? Maybe it's common for people to say things like this to each other, and I appreciate if you're trying to help me, but that's not how I'm left feeling after this interaction- maybe it'd be more helpful if you were more specific, just my impression- please don't interpret this as a plea for you to sink time into educating me or something, I guess unless you want to of your own volition.

Sorry if I somehow offended you in the first place. Maybe you're annoyed I didn't get your child/rapist example? I think I understood your point about people fearing the rapist more, but I don't see how it relates to the "cold and calculating" topic, unless you're suggesting the kid would not be called this. It can be hard to communicate tone via the internet and I'm new to all internet forums as of a few months ago so I'm not desensitized yet or accustomed to internet culture. I've already realized people often come off very differently online vs offline.

Comment author: Epiphany 21 October 2012 04:26:10AM *  0 points [-]

The type of murderer who just completely flips out isn't described as "cold and calculating" but we might describe a strategic killer that way. However, that comparison just means the strategic one is thinking more - not necessarily that the thinking being done is more intelligent. It might only imply that the strategic one isn't flying off the handle in response to emotion.

Try this scenario:

There's a murder who wants to kill a certain victim. The murderer watches the victim for a while to discover their commuting habits. They make a plan and purchase supplies. After a few weeks of planning, the murderer waits in the bushes, possessing everything necessary to kill their victim - formaldehyde for a snare, handcuffs for restraints, a knife, and a first aid kit in case the victim hurts them in a struggle. They wait for an hour until the victim is in exactly the right spot, and then they pounce with the formaldehyde. The murder handcuffs the victim and takes them to a different location where nobody can see. Then the murderer kills the victim.

Is this murderer cold and calculating?

Did the murderer use more strategy than the average person might use on a camping trip that involves hunting?

I think the answer to that is "no", so the meaning is potentially more like "cold enough to calculate" not "cold but intelligent".

Also, "people don't care how much you know until they know how much you care". If people see you as malicious but weak, say a child who fights with the other kids, they're likely to write you off as an annoyance and ignore you.

However, if they see you as malicious but strong, a fully grown person who is a rapist we'll say, then one is seen as a threat and people will pull out all the stops to get rid of you. A serial rapist gets news coverage. People stay indoors to avoid them. Police put in extra effort.

How often have there been news reports of a child bully wandering the sidewalks, urging you to protect your children? Probably never. That would just make people laugh. But I've seen rapists on the news plenty of times.

I think LessWrong would be better off with a label that means something more along the lines of "harmless nerds" or "intelligent people who care about the world".

I'm pretty sure cold and calculating means something more like "monstrous".

Comment author: nancyhua 21 October 2012 08:05:26AM 1 point [-]

I hadn't realized LessWrongers were being called cold and calculating. Despite Hanson writing some libertarian things, my impression was the plurality of lesswrongers subscribed to socialism or liberalism. Is this erroneous?

Does the description imply that the person thinks they are superior to or separate from other people? If I were worried about being described as cold and calculating, I think I'd try to show I cared about and could relate to normal people, despite being, in some ways, atypical. So if a libertarian, or anyone, were worried about being described this way, maybe they should think of ways to show they're not indifferent to the masses.

I think I agree with your remarks in general, although I'm not sure I understand what the kid/rapist example is saying. I'm getting the impression that "cold and calculating" means inhuman/monstrous, but also not like the animals, so maybe an impassive, evil robot monster.

Comment author: Epiphany 11 October 2012 03:27:11AM *  1 point [-]

"Cold and calculating" also sounds synonymous with "sociopathic".

So, this description is bad.

Comment author: nancyhua 21 October 2012 03:44:29AM *  0 points [-]

I agree, it's not a positive description. But looking on the upside...? Plus I was wondering if people realized or agreed that they were suggesting libertarians were smarter.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 21 October 2012 02:16:55AM 5 points [-]

The main argument that I can think of in support of affirmative action is that I do think it's common for young children to need role models to have an imagination about what their interests and potential futures might be.

Why does the role model need to have the same race/gender/etc. as the child?

Comment author: nancyhua 21 October 2012 03:39:13AM -2 points [-]

The role model doesn't NEED to be anything, theoretically. In practice I think most people relate to others who are similar to them in some obvious way. It could also be a subtle thing, like I read about one saying people found anonymous strangers more likable after being told they shared a birthday. But this type of information is not as obvious as gender.

There exist people who defy all expectations to become whatever they were going to become and you feel it wouldn't've mattered if they'd been born in a hut in Siberia or a brownstone in NYC. But many people are not like this and conform to whatever expectations they feel like they should be living up (or down) to. Expectation is complicated and comes from many factors, a source of which is media and topics at the forefront of the popular psyche.

Race/gender are just some of the most immediate ways of identifying and stereotyping a person. A person might also identify more with someone from the same town, country, religion, etc.

For me, gender was probably a principle factor of who I befriended as a kid. This is much less true now that I've been surrounded by men for the past decade. In terms of role models, my impression is that many kids are more likely to aspire to be like a famous person who seems like them in some obvious way. Like part of why I chose to the play the piano and violin was because I saw those Chinese prodigies playing those instruments and my brain absorbed that as what I (as an aspiring awesome Chinese kid) was expected to do. Honestly playing the tuba or drums or flute didn't even cross my mind. Someone might argue I am naturally disinterested in non-violin/piano instruments, but I don't think that's true- I just chose an instrument to try it and it happened to be whatever I saw that small Chinese girl holding on the cover of that CD my mom had.

To clarify: I think there are a lot more arguments against affirmative action than for.

Comment author: nancyhua 21 October 2012 02:48:09AM 8 points [-]

I'm Nancy Hua. I was MIT 2007 and worked in NYC and Chicago in automated trading for 5 years after graduating with BS's in Math with CS (18C) and in Writing (21W).

Currently I am working on a startup in the technology space. We have funding and I am considering hiring someone.

I started reading Eliezer's posts on Overcoming Bias. In 2011, I met Eliezer, Robin Hanson, and a bunch of the NYC Lesswrongers. After years of passive consumption, very recently I started posting on lesswrong after meeting some lesswrongers at the 2012 Singularity Summit and events leading up to it, and after reading HPMOR and wanting to talk about it. I tried getting my normal friends to read it but found that making new friends who have already read it is more efficient.

Many of the writings regarding overcoming our biases and asking more questions appeal to me because I see many places where we could make better decisions. It's amazing how far we've come without being all that intelligent or deliberate, but I wonder how much more slack we have before our bad decisions prevent us from reaching the stars. I want to make more optimal decisions in my own life because I need every edge I can get to achieve some of my goals! Plus I believe understanding and accepting reality is important to our success, as individuals and as a species.

Comment author: nancyhua 21 October 2012 02:14:24AM *  0 points [-]

If Ada Lovelace is the best example of a notable woman in computing 50 years from now, I will eat my hat.

It's obvious there are more notable men in STEM history than women. Thus a question that arises is if the notable women who do exist in STEM history are there because they're better than the men, having overcome despite discrimination, or if they're being retroactively singled out, a desperate lowering of the bar to identify SOME example.

However, this question of retroactive affirmative action is not the issue recognizing Ada Lovelace is trying to address. I don't know enough history to know if Lovelace is a worthy example, but I think it is important for people in general to identify with successful people similar to themselves so that they can imagine being like those people someday. Personally, I don't particularly need to look at someone's gender to identify with and be inspired by them. When an impoverished immigrant Jew like Einstein overcomes Nazis and scornful teachers and whatever else, I, despite being a Chinese woman from Pittsburgh, identify with his struggles and don't let people thinking I'm stupid because I'm smiley or shy or a woman or whatever deter me. However, many people do need role models to help them realize nascent interests in STEM subjects, especially if the peer group they identify with are not typically interested in those topics. For most, it's easier and more enjoyable to hang out with your friends doing girl things than go off on your own to explore programming or science in a room full of boys who ignore you.

Regardless of innate or learned differences in men and women, by far the first factor in this result for past populations is the number of men in STEM vs women historically, which is why the present is such an exciting time for women in STEM- there are a lot more females in STEM now! There may well be more notable women in STEM in our lifetimes than have ever existed. This idea inspires and motivates me to become one of them!

Do some men find posts singling out notable women offensive/ annoying because they think elevating a perhaps undeserving woman is unfair to all the deserving men? The suggestion of discrimination and affirmative action towards one set often upsets people in the complement of that set because humans have a strong instinct for fairness and hate injustice. Affirmative action is unfair to people who had nothing to do with past injustices, even if they're benefiting from them, so I sympathize with the negative comments, although I don't know whether two wrongs make a right in practice. My hope that we will soon have a bevy of women undeniably worthy of recognition and honor in STEM history.

Comment author: nancyhua 20 October 2012 08:06:57PM *  3 points [-]

Other questions:

What is your interest in joining a startup or being an entrepreneur?

What is your primary motive for your work: fame, money, recognition, helping the world, etc.?

How altruistic do you consider yourself (donate time, money, yearly, monthly, etc)?

How interested are you in meeting lesswrong readers or contributors?

This looks really fun! I can't wait to fill it out and see everyone's answers. I guess I am a person who likes internet quizzes after all.

View more: Prev | Next

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit