> even if you don't use that explicitly, it can affect your judgement of them when discussing them to an interview committee
my friend that's literally unethical.
Here's a sample question, feel free to use:
"If somebody offered you money to build the brains for fully-autonomous killbots PLUS mass domestic surveillance of the civilian population, would you accept the offer?"
"Yes" => They are unethical => No-hire.
"No" => They did do that, and thus are a liar, and thus are unethical => No-hire.
Sure, you never write "no hire because they worked at Palantir". You write "candidate didn't ask clarifying questions about {X} and jumped to answer {Y} which is not what I expect from a candidate of this level, no hire".
....this assumes that anyone at all reads your detailed notes if you submit an initial rating of "no hire", and I have very little evidence from my interviewing career across multiple companies to believe that's the case..
> this assumes that anyone at all reads your detailed notes if you submit an initial rating of "no hire"
the director of my org (inside of FAANG) reads all of our interview feedback if we make an offer.
Hilarious because onesociety2022 seems so earnest. Someone who is shocked at the idea that job search isn’t a pure meritocracy.
Horrifying because kuang_eleven points out just how easy it is to pass a qualified candidate if you want to.
The truth is somewhere in the middle…
Okay, you might need to re-evaluate the life lessons you seem to have selectively taught yourself. This is base line culture war 'You must be mentally deficient if you don't align with what I deem to be empathetic right now or I don't think you're nice enough' type stuff.
High school type shit.
I have. I've also seen it happen for Uber, for someone who worked on the god mode project that went viral for being used at holiday parties.
Don't judge employees for what their CEOs do bc they do not have a choice in the matter.
That resume you toss might be someone that needs to pay a mortgage, has a sick wife, or autistic kid that needs the insurance. Or it could come from an employee who genuinely disagrees with mission and quit, but its not like you would know or even care.
What if your CEO went politically rogue and started openly supporting Trump? Would you quit? I doubt that.
What a childish attitude. Get your politics TF out of the office and remember the fact that we live in a democracy where sometimes you do not get your way.
Yes. I would. Trump is a uniquely dangerous president with uniquely unrestrained power.
I'll continue to write my representatives, publicly protest, boycott businesses and employers, and use all other legal levers of power that I can. My kids future cannot afford to let these crimes continue unchecked.
> Get your politics TF out of the office...
A large portion of our lives is spent at the office, with people we may not otherwise interact with. Former coworkers sharing their perspectives helped sow the seeds of my change in politics, both on individual issues and worldview.
It's childish to think life can be perfectly compartmentalized, like pre-K learning stations.
If there is truly an impasse the legislative branch should win because it is the most diverse and direct representation of the people.
I also have other crazy ideas like money isn't speech, ranked choice voting, same-day primaries, outlawing private financing of campaigns, bribery is accepting compensation even if before the action being bought, abolishing the electoral college and the US Senate, and no one is above investigation or the law--not even in their official capacity.
Consider that more than 50% of your fellow American citizens voted for the man you hate, and you will have to work with them no matter what. That's called "democracy."
Its childish to avoid that truth.
Resisting tyranny is a core tenant of democracy.
Trump is no saint, but you are turning him into a cartoonish villain. That never stopped democrats from taking his donation checks, did it?
> Resisting tyranny is a core tenant of democracy.
No, the core tenant of democracy is everyone gets a vote and you agree to live with the outcome, bc you get a vote too. And if you do not agree with the outcome, then you are the tyrant.
I didn't claim Trump is any of those things yet. Though courts would agree that he's a racist (in his tenant policies, never mind his retoric), a felon (financial crimes), a fraud (sending nonprofit money to Bondi's campaign), obstructs the biggest pedo investigation ever (redacting even "don't"), and the 14th amendment would disqualify him from federal office--if he hadn't packed SCOTUS (who rule for him 90+% vs 90+% against in lower courts).
> That never stopped democrats from taking his donation checks, did it?
Democrats have plenty of blood on their hands. At least some of them continue to try to reform campaign financing. Modern Republicans seem to relish in the money laundering aspects, especially Trump.
> And if you do not agree with the outcome, then you are the tyrant.
You cannot have democracy under tyranny. And if a country elects an aspiring dictator (who earlier lead a mob to overthrow an election result, sent fake electors, demanded votes be "found", demanded vote counting be stopped while he was ahead, etc) then I suppose it ceases to be a democracy thereafter.
Regardless, I'm not advocating illegal acts, despite the fact that Trump commits them on the regular. I'm advocating the exercise of freedom of speech, expression, and association in opposition to a (hopefully term limited) tyranny.
> Yes. I would. Trump is a uniquely dangerous president with uniquely unrestrained power.
Even if it meant you could lose your house? Even if you were 6 months pregnant (meaning it could put your health insurance in jeopardy at a pretty critical time, as well as your parental leave)? Even if you quitting would accomplish absolutely nothing?
Any maybe you're such a zealot that you'd rather end up homeless than working for a company managed by a CEO that supports Trump. But don't punish other people for not being willing to do the same. Other people have other priorities, and other situations going on in their life, and that's fine.
You should not deserve a job for the rest of your life. You should be homeless and honestly, maybe end your life.
If your CEO supports Trump, that probably isn't the best thing either, although this is 1 million times better than being the tool used to break every laws, developing killing and spying machines.
Palantir always worked with the military, but I doubt you cared when they helped drone people during the Obama administration.
I do have a problem with surveillance.
Some people here would say you should not deserve a job, be homeless, and maybe end your life bc you voted for Trump. How do you feel about that?
It is silly.
Your other examples line up, but this wasn't a problem being solved - engine knock was a problem being solved.
In real engineering disciplines, engineers sign their name to key decisions and if people get hurt someone loses their license and their right to do engineering work. The world would be a better place if software worked that way, although it'd be harder for a bunch of sociopaths to become billionaires.
I will correct myself: Your employer might not want fussy employees (ex: palantir).