The main point of the screening is to have a highly structured question and answer session that is recorded for posterity, and which can/will be referenced at the next screening 'n' number of years later.
One could even argue that the polygraph benefits the person being screened, as it provides some additional motivation for them to take it seriously.
Door locks are a deterrent that increase the difficulty and cost of a crime. If your neighbor's house is locked and yours isn't, then you're going to be more of a target. In that sense they do provide security, but of course any lock might still be defeated.
Similarly, I can see how structured psychological interrogation, assisted by a polygraph, is a useful deterrent. The presence of moles doesn't negate all of its value. Just like having your house broken into once doesn't mean you'll stop using door locks.
The difference is that locks actually do work. They’re not merely a psychological trick, they actually do provide a barrier, even if one that might not be hard to defeat.
Considering polygraphs don’t work at all, I have to imagine that an equally effective interrogation could be constructed without them.
It's especially confusing for native English speakers because 'go' should only be capitalized when it's the first word in the sentence or being used as the name of something (such as the Go programming language)
And it's also confusing why people keep posting walled off articles on HN.
Because we didn't ask the right questions. We changed the process to require some questions. Which isn't perfect either, but we don't get months to interview someone so.
I think you should start off with something stereotypical and crass like Grand Theft Auto to set her expectations very low, and then introduce her to Breath of the Wild.
I thought that was just due to it being about React.