Talk:Autonomy Corporation/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
If you have been recruited to come here and add comments: Please be aware that the entire content dispute was resolved in October 2005 via a Wikipedia "Request for Comments" process. This is not the article about Autonomy Systems, but rather a discussion page that mostly contains old comments provided during the RfC process. Although you are free to add your own comments if you wish (as long as you don't delete or alter the comments of others) it probably isn't helpful to reopen the content dispute on this article. Both pro and anti Automony Systems contributors had ceased adding opinion to the article after the RfC closed, leaving a shorter but neutral article. I've kept this topic on my watch list to ensure that the article stays neutral. Also, please SIGN all comments with ~~~~. Come on, you all work (or used to work) at a software development company. You should be able to figure out how to use a wiki! CarbonCopy (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry folks but you don't understand high school probability theory. In the example below if there are two then its 50/50 end of story. This is the monty hall goat thing and its so wrong...two doors you don't know which door the goat is behind its 50/50 a ten yer old could tell you that —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.129.78.9 (talk • contribs) 11:22, August 7, 2006.
Does anyone know which flavor of Bayesian method they actaully use, is it bayesian networks or belief nodes. I contracted for them for 3 months and like the software but never found out how it worked. All I heard was it was Bayesian Inference and Information theory which is something to do with Shannon who I know did communications work with information entropy but I can't find Inference as a term in the easy to read literature. I worked in the Cambridge office and although I have no knowledge of the other offices it seemed like an ok place. I was only there 3 months but it didn't seem to match the negative comments on this discussion but it was mid 2005 so it may have changed by then but I suspect the negative posts seem to be a little unrepresentative, someone seems miffed about something. I would probably been happy to take a job there but my project has finished. Anyone tell me how it works?
Wired on Autonomy use of bayes
This ia good introduction to understanding it
Autonomy is just one of the companies putting Bayes' rule to use in ways its creator couldn't have imagined. The reverend is hard at work in Microsoft Office's wizards, which anticipate your needs by observing behaviors such as cursor movements and hesitations. The theorem also plays a role in the troubleshooting areas on Microsoft.com, where Bayesian methods of diagnosing user problems save the company hundreds of millions of dollars a year in service calls, says Eric Horvitz, one of 25 Bayesian specialists who work with Microsoft's product teams.
One of the most promising uses of these strategies, predicts Horvitz, will be in the development of what Microsoft calls continual computation. Anticipating a user's next move could cut the time spent launching frequently used apps. Likewise, your browser could pre-fetch potentially interesting pages and cache them for you in the background.
In Redmond, there's a prototype running on a desktop computer christened the Bayesian Receptionist. Using a voice interface rather than text, the Bayesian Receptionist greets visitors to the Conversational Architectures Group and answers questions as needed. Horvitz points out that the particular strength of Bayesian approaches - making accurate guesses under conditions of uncertainty - is especially relevant for interfaces that converse, because they have to depend on constant renegotiation of the subject at hand, following the flow of spontaneous exchange while navigating through topic hierarchies. "Uncertainty about communication is at the heart of conversation," Horvitz observes.
He believes the smart objects of the future will inevitably carry a piece of Bayes' legacy: "Data from Star Trek? He'll be Bayesian."
This is a nice example
From which bowl is the cookie? To illustrate, suppose there are two bowls full of cookies. Bowl #1 has 10 chocolate chip and 30 plain cookies, while bowl #2 has 20 of each. Our friend Fred picks a bowl at random, and then picks a cookie at random. We may assume there is no reason to believe Fred treats one bowl differently from another, likewise for the cookies. The cookie turns out to be a plain one. How probable is it that Fred picked it out of bowl #1?
Intuitively, it seems clear that the answer should be more than a half, since there are more plain cookies in bowl #1. The precise answer is given by Bayes' theorem. Let H1 correspond to bowl #1, and H2 to bowl #2. It is given that the bowls are identical from Fred's point of view, thus P(H1) = P(H2), and the two must add up to 1, so both are equal to 0.5. The datum D is the observation of a plain cookie. From the contents of the bowls, we know that P(D | H1) = 30/40 = 0.75 and P(D | H2) = 20/40 = 0.5. Bayes' formula then yields
Before observing the cookie, the probability that Fred chose bowl #1 is the prior probability, P(H1), which is 0.5. After observing the cookie, we revise the probability to P(H1|D), which is 0.6.
It's worth noting that our belief that observing the plain cookie should somehow affect the prior probability P(H1) has formed the posterior probability P(H1 | D), increased from 0.5 to 0.6. This reflects our intuition that the cookie is more likely from the bowl 1, since it has a higher ratio of plain to chocolate cookies than the other. The decision is given as a probability, which is different from classical statistics.
Bayesian inference grew out of maximum entropy. Jeynes and Steve gull did alot of the work at Cambridge. I think Steve was an astronomer from memory and it was used for cleaning up images from radio telescopes. The method although mathematically well founded can also be used to analyse Neual netwroks which can often be viewed as a subset. The clever aspects of it all are the inclusion of prior probablilty distributions which allow you to incorporate a knowledge basis. Alot of work from the Cambridge team can be found by looking for papers by Rayner who ran the lab there.
Yes - the above seems correct. I worked for this company early in 2005, and it was an extremely unpleasant place. During those days, and subsequently, the truth has come out and the company's infamy has grown, particularly around its home area in Cambridge, UK. I can testify through first hand observation that the company has a high staff turnover and low morale, and it's fairly obviously due to a ruthless work culture. The company exploits people as much as possible by making them work insane hours for no reward; not surprisingly, people don't stick around in conditions like that.
Shame really, as the technology is clever and it /could/ have been an exciting place to work. They've attracted a lot of great people whom they don't deserve. Earlier versions of this page mentioned employment tribunals, agencies that refuse to deal with this company, etc. I can personally testify that some of that is true. (above unsigned comment 19:58, 6 October 2005 82.152.145.67)
A friend in dev just told me about this page. Its pretty sad in there seems to be some unhappy ex Autonomite or a competitor posting . Its a pretty inaccurate and unfair image being peddled. Yep we work hard, but we also play hard. When we need to put the hours in for a release or a new product people round here are commited but we also play hard. Every year Autonomy hires a whole 737 and flies everyone away for the Christmas party, this year Prague, last year Barcelona etc all expenses paid. Likewise punting trips in Summer, sabaticals after 3 years and many of us have done pretty nicely out of the options. I think I know who you are, are you the sys admin that came and worked for about 6weeks, your Dad helped you get the job becuase he is the CTO's doctor....if I'm wrong apologies , but the only other sys ad I can think of who left recently came back once he had dealt with a grilfirend issue, if I'm right, you are right it wasn't a good place for you..good luck in future. As for your comment on turnover its very low and most of us have the kind of qualifications that we could walk into a job straight away. Autonomy also allowed me to go and work in San Francisco for 6 months...that was pretty cool. (above unsigned comment 21:34, 30 December 2005 62.252.68.63)
Good thing that this is flagged as not neutral - because the entry is obviously constantly flooded by bitter ex-employees. Is Wikipedia a forum for true facts to establish themselves or vent past employment disputes? (above unsigned comment 13:16, 14 October 2005 80.47.210.147)
I have been watching the revert wars on this page. I work at Autonomy and have in dev for 3 years. It is one of the top software companies in the country. I doubled my salary in 15 months and have cashed in a good set of options...yes its an intense environment but many of us like that..its not boring but pretty exciting. Some agencies don't refer autonomy because it has 3 exclusive agencies and has negotiated lower rates because it can take it pick of candidates, it will not work with the other agencies , you need a 2:1 or a first froma good university to be considered, else you should go elsewhere. Although many of us love the pace if you want a quiet life this is not the right place for you. If you are not up to it they seem to let you go within 3 months. I work with some really bright and motivated people..thats how I like it...yep if there is a major release we all get down to it, but its by choice. One other out ome of having worked at autonomy is you continaully get offered stuff elsewhere..its a hot name for the CV. (above unsigned comment 19:10, 30 December 2005 86.129.176.240)
Nope, but fact is fact. The unpleasant culture (by the standards of the vast majority of working professionals) is fact, the agencies that spurn the company are fact, the exploitative working hours are a fact, etc. So yes, it's true that the company's products and achievements are impressive, but the downsides are just as true and relevant, and have every right to be presented here (above unsigned comment 13:06, 15 October 2005 82.153.109.26)
This is rubbish , there are a number of newspaper articles covering the fact tht Autonomy staff have shared some of the biggest payouts in the UK, also there in the whole history of the company only been two tribunals, both won by the company. In one case a salesperson who sold zero and went to no meetings and the other someone who tried to sell secrets who the judge called a liar in the judgement. I assume one of the these two is the embittered poster above. Tribunal prcoeedings can be seached in the UK to verify this. Autonomy staff have one of the best option packages in the UK. (above unsigned comment 10:41, 16 October 2005 86.137.205.33)
Erm, really? I'm not the salesperson you refer to; I was a systems guy, and was treated appallingly. When offered the job, I had to fight to secure a salary above my previous public-sector job, and there was no pension, no benefits, nothing. I was expected to work unlimited hours, including night and weekend calls for no pay, and attempts to discuss important situations with management were met with silence. I had one or two happy colleagues, but out of those I got to know in the company, I would say three quarters were unhappy and very keen to get out. Several known to me have left since I did, etc, etc. Say "bitter employee" as much as you want, but the above is simple fact. Anyway, enough of that, I've got a life to live, now that I've reclaimed it from Autonomy's clutches! (above unsigned comment 20:46, 18 October 2005 82.152.145.67)
Why not follow the neutrality guidelines as set out on the Wikipedia:Neutral_Point_of_View pages? Most all company pages have official (but objective) coverage and negative (but objective) content as well. In both cases you should support your comments with named references (Neutral_Point_of_View#A_simple_formulation) in order to minimize the chances of introducing biased comment, whatever your position. Take a look at the Microsoft pages on how this can be done properly to ensure that all facts are recorded correctly ([[1]] is a good example). As there are at least two people here who appear to know the subject well this should lead to a good entry. (above unsigned comment 21:32, 16 October 2005 67.188.239.10)
I don't have good objective sources, but I tried to at least tone down the marketing fluff a notch and have the article reflect that there are conflicting views of the employment practices and corporate culture. It is very obvious that someone with a relationship to the company (if not an actual marketing employee) is monitoring this page and making highly non-NPOV edits. Likewise, someone with a grudge is doing the same. CarbonCopy 19:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
It is extrememely poor form to revert/mostly blank a talk page. Shame! Shame! 86.129.180.34 (whoever you really are) CarbonCopy 20:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I came via RfC. The article does seem to be mostly PR still. The internal dynamics (pro and con) are probably not of general interest, either. I'll take the liberty of working on both. -- Alan McBeth 00:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I worked at Autonomy (Cambridge) a few years ago - for a few years, so I think I'm pretty objective and impartial. Autonomy runs its workforce in a simailar manner to many gaming companies. It is an exciting, hectic and dog-eat-dog environment. Some people THRIVE on it, some people go under. This doesn't make it a BAD place, but it definitely only suits a certain personality type. It's quite interesting to keep an eye on the employment page on their own website to guage for yourself. Mattush 15:01, 01 August 2006 (UTC)
NPOV achieved?
I think the edits by Alan McBeth take this article to the point that the PoV dispute flag can be taken down. Hopefully the company's proponents and adversaries will refrain from using this page to post unverifiable PoV materials in the future--FRS 20:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
current status
I came to this page via rfc... has the dispute been cleared up? The last entry I see is October 31
peace, Sethie 00:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Looks like it has been cleared up, thanks to the good work by Alan McBeth. Not sure how to take something out of RFC, buy I'll try. CarbonCopy 02:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Note to anonymous blanking vandal
Feel free to add your own commentary to this discussion page. However, deleting comments by others is vandalism. Changing the comments of others to say something totally different from what they posted is a particularly serious form of vandalism. If you represent Autonomy Systems, you are giving a very poor impression of your company by your behaviour, as have prior visitors to this page. CarbonCopy (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Your comments are libelous and un true..if you wish to make them state your name so it could be verified. Please stop vandalisiing this (above unsigned comment 11:34, 30 December 2005 86.129.176.240)
