Would you extend that argument to tabbed interfaces as well? Why should browsers support tabs (and an inconsistent interface by each vendor), when you can just open a new window instead?
The tabs reuse resources of the browser, and the browser does it really well - I think it's not even arguable that browsers are more complex than the OS GUI API, this is why e.g. Windows 11 uses react.js in start menu.
So if you create a webpage that is so damn advanced that it beats the browsers OR it somehow reuses heavy resources within one webpage, I'd say this is a good justification. And IMO the OP link isn't an example of that.
you need to walk through the battlefield to trace it. you know, the one the drone just flew over.
they're pretty thin, and it's not hard for the operators to displace. even using other drones and AI to track refraction index of the fiber it's still a tall order. you'd probably have better luck shooting artillery at any large building or hedgerow nearby...
As an interviewer, I'm seeing a huge increase in proportion of candidates cheating surreptitiously during video interviews. And it's becoming difficult to suspect any wrong-doing unless you're very watchful by looking for academic responses to questions.
Why would anyone encourage building such a tool, I can't fathom.
Some first/introductory interviews are now "powered" by AI. As in, the interviewee gets an AI bot that evaluates them. I'd not be surprised if this takes over and becomes standard.
For now, this is perhaps a blessing in disguise: it tells you that a company is all aboard the hype train and that leadership is seriously lacking in critical thinking and judgment. That can certainly save you from wasting more time with them.
I really, really hope this does not become a "standard". Ugh.
Don't candidates also get a say? If a company asked me to jump through that hoop I'd have a simple one-word response. "No"
If enough good candidates have that reaction, it will become a prestige marker for a company to not use AI screening to give them access to the best candidates
Have you tried putting yourself in the perspective of the humans trying to find a job in a market that is turning over now and was already dystopian before AI was injected into a dystopian, hellish process of “putting on a tie and using a firm handshake” to apply into the void.
This is so stupid. One of the main reasons it's become a dystopian, hellish process is because people cheat; proliferating cheating will make it even worse.
Lying and cheating on a job interview isn't a victimless crime. You're harming the company and all your coworkers when they hire you into a job you're not qualified for; you're harming all the other actually qualified candidates that didn't get hired instead; you're harming yourself, when your salary comes from a company who rely on you to give something you can't give them.
Well be prepared for it to get MUCH MUCH worse, two AI agents battling it out trying to get each other to mess up. While all the human have no idea what the hell is happening.
It's pretty simple - people need to eat (and fulfill other basic needs, of course), to eat they need jobs, to get jobs they need to pass the interview. The hiring process in a lot of industries is heavily gamed at this point, to the point that not cheating is basically an automatic fail. So, if you want to eat, you cheat.
> The hiring process in a lot of industries is heavily gamed at this point, to the point that not cheating is basically an automatic fail.
This sound a bit of "thief thinks everyone steals". Interview preparation is normal and common but I don't think cheating is. May depend on the location of course.
The "heavily gaming" happens before the interview. When you reorder and edit your resume to have the right keywords to get on top of the LLM/intern sorted pile.
I can totally understand thinking this way out of desperation, and being lulled into thinking it’s this simple, but it seems short sighted with hidden complexities. First of all, it’s risky. If you get caught, you don’t eat, and it could follow you and prevent you from even getting in the door elsewhere. Companies are always going to be watching for cheaters, they are always going to have more visibility than you into what interviewees are doing, and they are always going to have more resources. Even if you do cheat and get hired, it quickly becomes obvious that you’re unqualified and can’t do what you claimed, and even if you don’t lose your job, you’re less likely to get promoted. Being lazy and amoral about interviews seems like a trap people set for themselves.
The good news is that a lot of companies are starting to allow AI during the interviews, and suddenly it’s not cheating. But of course that means you need to be good at using AI and interviewing and programming, you won’t be able to cheat and rely on the AI to do your talking for you.
Doing whatever it takes to get the foot in the door may be encouraged, but only to a point and I think out and out cheating is probably crossing a line... As would murder, arson etc. etc.
If cheating means asking someone in the company you're interviewing for a peek at what will be asked then great. In my book that's using leverage.
Reviewing previously posted interview tests is probably recommended.
Hooking up a copilot to answer interview questions for you in real time is probably less so.
How is it unethical? Say you ask whoever what's being asked and they say you need to sort a string in place and then discuss how a random forest gets trained... You still need to answer those questions AND know enough to answer the follow up questions. If you're no good you'll be still found out. It just means you'll have a head start over someone without those kinds of contacts. So what level of utilizing your professional network crosses a line? Does a recommendation cross a line because I know for a fact that internal recommendations are moved to the head of the queue in most companies.
Presumably the value in knowing "you need to sort a string in place and then discuss how a random forest gets trained" is that it impacts your answers - for instance, by allowing you to look this up before the interview while appearing to the interviewers to he operating unfer the dame conditions as the other candidates, who did not know to. Your performance then appears as a signal of broader inwoledge and capability than you possess - you have, as is the entire point here and which I should not need to spell out, gained an advantage over other candidates by virtue of the information which was intentionally leaked.
If the point of the interview were "answer those questions AND know enough to answer the follow up questions" _once told what to expect and prep_, they’d be sharing those questions with all candidates. If you feel that saying to the interviewers "by the way, I did know this because [X] told me they’d be here" wouldn’t impact outcomes, then great. If you feel you’d need to hide that, then you’re aware this involves dishonesty - and if you still struggle to see how that’s unethical, lets just make sure we never need to work together.
> lets just make sure we never need to work together
Seeing as how you seem to prefer to let everyone else steal a march on you in interviews in the interest of "fairness", that's not likely to happen anytime soon.
This is correct—I do not engage ethics only when it won’t cost me, nor take convenience into account when determining where my lines are. Perhaps I’m privileged to have that option.
Probably you've been out of the getting hired game but I had a glimpse of it last year: absolutely terrible.
When I started you'd send a mail to the company directly about a position, you'd go to the office, have a short interview, meet the team and they'll let you know. That's it.
Now it's 2 rounds of HR bs, 3 layers of tech interviews, then meet the CEO/CTO/etc. And then references and then a final "chat". And you still can get ghosted at literally any step, even at the final cozy chat, just because of "vibes".
And throw in companies sending you leetcode even before talking to you and you can see why one would want to get through the bs.
I still stand about my favourite approach for tech jobs: intro and tech chat (1-2h) about your resume, what you'll be doing and anything you might have questions about (no challenges or stupid riddles). Then, if everything goes smoothly, you get a 2 weeks contract and you are in probation. If everything goes well, you get another contract for 3-6 months (up to you to accept or not) and then you get converted to permanent if everything went well for both parties.
I actually like your idea of a probationary hire, but you can see this is just an even longer extended interview, right? If companies were to adopt this model en masse, they would over-hire and then drop most people after the first 2 weeks, and you’d be out looking for another job, having wasted even more time than 5 rounds of interviews, and being unable to interview for multiple jobs at the same time.
Software interviews and hiring have definitely changed over time, and I know it’s harder right now, but I think we’re seeing the past with slightly rose-tinted glasses here. It was never only just one short interview, there were applications and emails and phone screens. In my career, I’ve always had multiple interviews and technical discussions during job applications, even back in the 90s. Getting hired, for me, has always taken several weeks end to end, if not longer.
There are a bunch of reasons interviews are getting harder, and people trying to game the system and trying to cheat are one of them, a big one. Think about it from the company’s perspective: what would you do if the volume of applications you got started far exceeding the number of positions available, and an increasing percentage of the applications you got were people unqualified for the positions but adept at pretending? More face time vetting before hiring seems like the only reasonable answer.
Other reasons why interviews are getting harder is that software jobs are more competitive now, and possibly relative pay has gone up. If interviewing was easier back in the day (and I agree that it was), it’s because there wasn’t as much competition.
Agreed, I would too. Getting paid is the main difference, and while it would be hard if it happened a lot, it’d at least put food on the table. I just know from time spent contracting and from jobs with periodic and/or seasonal layoffs (films & games in my case) that most people in those jobs still don’t like the unpredictability, even when they choose contracting for it’s flexibility, and even when turnover is limited to once every year or so.
I am old and thankfully out of the getting hired game. I was cleaning out some files (paper!) recently and ran across correspondence from old job searches. As you said, single visit and decision. I was also struck by the number of letters from companies thanking me for my resume and politely telling me they were passing but would keep me in mind for future openings. It was not uncommon to receive a letter directly from the hiring manager thanking me for coming to an interview.
A two week probation means that nearly all candidates will need to quit their current job to do the probation which seems unlikely to be popular with candidates
I won't use it, but I do see it as somewhat symmetric. If the interviewers are using AI or expecting you to use AI for these tasks once you're on the job, then it doesn't seem completely immoral.
Get ready to start having some fun in your interviews. Start including things like redirection of focus through general statements, unrelated (and false) trivia, and misleading suggestions in your interview questions. Most of the humans you'd like to hire will ignore those or ask you about them.
Many LLMs will be derailed into giving entertainingly wrong answers:
> unless you're very watchful by looking for academic responses to questions
I've noticed that a lot of the supposed hallmarks of "AI slop writing" (em-dashes, certain multisyllabic words, frequent use of metaphor) are also just hallmarks of professional and academic writing. (It's true that some of them are clichés, of course.)
It seems like most efforts to instruct people on how to "fight back against AI writing" effectively instruct them to punish highly literate people as well.
I think it's often still possible to tell human writing that uses some of the same tropes or vocabulary apart from AI writing, but it's very vibes-based. I've yet to see specific guidance or characterizations of AI writing that won't also flag journalists, academics, and many random geeks.
Honestly, why would you care? IF, and this is a big if, you are confident your interview process accurately assesses the abilities of candidates to carry out the role, then why would LLM assistance even matter? Are they not going to be allowed to use LLMs on the job?
This faux-outrage is just showing how broken the whole hiring process is in tech.
Stop giving people puzzles and just talk to them. If you're unable to evaluate if someone's a good fit for a role then you either need to learn more about effective interviewing, learn more about the role, or find someone else who is good at hiring/interviewing.
Indeed, I am sympathetic to the author in this situation because I think open-source is important, but I don't approve of this software and don't want to affiliate with it by even starring it on GitHub.
Not really sure what I can do for the author but say "that sucks, bro".
Yes. If you determine a Tesla is the best car to fit your needs, there are far better ways to influence Elon's actions than depriving yourself of the best car for you. You could write your Senator / Congressperson to support laws that would curtail Elon's actions. You could speak publicly and propose better things than what Elon is doing or publicize how and why they're harmful, etc. Buying or not buying a Tesla is very unlikely to influence Elon at all.
Also consider: There are thousands of employees at Tesla and thousands of shareholders. Do you also need to individually vet every one of their opinions before you enrich them by buying a Tesla? What if they don't all have the same opinion? Are you supposed to take a poll and go with the majority? This is silly.
> Buying or not buying a Tesla is very unlikely to influence Elon at all.
But it can certainly influence other people's perception of you... I think what we all have to decide though is how much that matters to us, should we decide to buy one anyway.
> Do you also need to individually vet every one of their opinions before you enrich them by buying a Tesla?
I think most people's negative image of a company/project tends to come from the leadership, or the most public leader, and not all the individual employees.
To that end I would consider Linux to be a tool mainly led by a habitually emotionally abusive person (Linus). Or when people mention Kitty I point out to them Kovid's many personal attacks on end-users, etc.
For some reason a lot of people in tech (and probably everywhere) seem to have real issues with staunch dogmatism and god complexes. I know people make mistakes and that's fine, but I'm talking about the ones that show consistent and daily life-long problems with usually no remorse.
You don't know everything, none of us do, and there can actually be other valid perspectives if you allow yourself to be wrong occasionally. Definitely not enough introspection/self-reflection going on IMO.
I'm sure people will downvote this but I don't think people should be forced to (or shamed when they don't want to) separate the art from the artist.
> But it can certainly influence other people's perception of you... I think what we all have to decide though is how much that matters to us, should we decide to buy one anyway.
Yes, this is a concern, and it's a direct result of the phenomenon I'm talking about. There are violent, stupid people who will attack you because they think that buying a product means you endorse every political opinion every person who made that product ever had.
I'm actually looking to buy a car soon, and I've considered this in regard to Tesla. Do I want to deal with having my car keyed or painted or set on fire because of what someone thinks about Elon? Do I want to potentially put myself or my family in danger because someone thinks that attacking a random Tesla consumer is the best way to effect change in the world? And, frankly, no, I don't. But that's what I'm talking about. If you find yourself attacking strangers or destroying their property because you disagree with the politics of some CEO the person you're attacking has never met, you are in fact the bad guy.
I agree with you, up until the point that CEO is a verified Nazi. If you see a man give multiple Nazi salutes behind the presidential seal, and your response to that is to hand over your money to him, are you a good or even neutral person? Not in my eyes, sorry. We have to have some standards in this society. Look around, fascism is flourishing. What you are doing now is what you would have been doing as a German in the 1930s.
The defining characteristic of Nazis is authoritarian megalomania, something Musk has in spades. The hand gesture is how they identified themselves and professed their allegiance to the cause, something Musk has adopted. He's telling us who he is, we should listen.
The gas chambers are their most horrific deed, but Nazis were still Nazis before they gassed anyone. Therefore gassing does not define them.
The key to stopping Nazis is to do so before they get the gas chamber stage. If you let it get that far, you're too late. So you have to rely on other clues.
Nazi salute are about as oblique as you can get. They should have been a wakeup call.
>If you determine a Tesla is the best car to fit your needs, there are far better ways to influence Elon's actions than depriving yourself of the best car for you.
As if "having the best car for you" is some sort of moral imperative or necessity, as if buying a less luxury vehicle is some sort of unthinkable option.
>You could write your Senator / Congressperson to support laws that would curtail Elon's actions.
Ah yes, tell the government that supports elon and that elon is part of to simply not do those things. Surely that is a workable option right now!
You can vote for a different government. You can even campaign for a different government, or run for office yourself. It's this whole system we created for the people to control the government directly instead of changing buying patterns and hoping 18 levels away someone figures out you're trying to tell them to change a policy.
I would buy a "tool" that solves a problem significantly better than its competitors, but I usually ditch options that are marginally better o cheaper if I feel a personal moral conflict.
Just to honour the Godwin law, take the Eduard Pernkopf anatomy manual as an example, a fascinating example of this discussion.
There is always a tipping point where practicality beats purity, and I think it's ok trying to stretch it, respecting other's choices in the way of course. No need to judge.
I think it's more rational to fuss about buying a Tesla than about buying a Windows license for a few reasons:
* It's a heck of a lot of money to send to any company, so it makes more sense to pause and consider what you're funding. I can't put that much effort into every <$100 purchase without going crazy.
* Tesla is far more about Musk than Microsoft is about... whoever runs Microsoft these days. There's a very specific person tied to it.
* Driving a Tesla is seen by the world as a statement of some kind in a way that running Windows simply isn't. It's worth considering if that's a statement you want to be making.
I would. With some modification. If it was cheapest vehicle on market that meets my needs I would probably buy it. But it is neither cheapest or gas...
I've not heard of XPrivacyLua, which is by the same author of the excellent NetGuard[0], which I've been using for years.
Interestingly XPrivacyLua is not supported anymore and the pro companion app will be removed from the Play store by Google because it uses the permission QUERY_ALL_PACKAGES.[1]
Indeed, it is a shame. However, XPL-EX is a fork (though with much internal code (re)written at this point) with even more capability, while maintaining the familiar and simple UI. Seems pretty neat!
It can run ublock origin right now, and will be able to run ublock origin lite into the future.
No chromium-based browser currently plans to keep MV2 support. It's just not feasible for a small group to keep it maintained ontop of the inevitable breaking changes that will be introduced in upstream over time.
If this bothers you, use a real browser that isn't sourced from an ad company.
Otherwise, you'll be getting exactly what you should expect, and nothing more.
