zero-sharp

Oh this has been posted before. It's funny because I worked at a small company where doing what the author suggests would have been impossible and also stupid. Spreadsheets have their place. I'm so sorry that doesn't fit your tech idealism.

>I'm glad I didn't get those jobs anyway because in the end after hundreds of applications I ususally found something that was more my style.

As somebody else mentioned, it depends on the size of the company. In some cases, you have no information about the culture or quality of the employer based on something like this. The strong pushback I'm seeing for something this obvious is wild.

I don't get it. This is a job application and you're trying to make a good first impression. Complying with their requirements is the first step towards doing that. A lot of people don't have the freedom to pick and choose their employers based on their style of humor. You know what a lot of people don't want to hear? "lol this part of the application is annoying"

"humorless individual not worth working for."

I probably have 10 other things I consider before taking into account my employer's style of humor. Not to mention, the person (machine) looking at your application may or may not be the person you're going to be working with. So, by doing this, you're potentially filtering yourself out based on an algorithm or temperament of an HR person. The idea that this necessarily represents the quality of the employer is kinda strange.

and that's all it took for your application to get thrown out

Yea it was a similar situation for me. I definitely wasn't in poverty, but my family was a mess. I mostly hung out in my room on the internet and got away from it.

I'm just trying to provide a balanced take on the article my man.

Oh okay, I didn't realize this article was getting revived from several days ago.

being flaky, matching but never messaging, getting ghosted, "not knowing what he wants" - these are things that are brought up in the article from women and apply towards women as well.

The thing with apps is that some/most women can instantly fill up their profiles with matches, which is to say that they'll quickly get flooded with guys trying to talk to them. That's the way it works. I'm just trying to explain the dynamic. But having all of these options at your fingertips really diminishes interactions. I think that's the uniquely guy problem.

I don't know if there is causation going on, but I have a feeling that I get more spam calls when I apply for jobs. Just a feeling.

Most working mathematicians don't care about pure set theory. They're not thinking about ZFC axioms while they're doing math. This only becomes a topic of conversation because we start getting counterintuitive results down the line, or because of an increasing awareness of mistakes (see video below).

I think this a good video about foundations:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btzE11jNbj4

He makes a point about how different foundational systems can interpret each other, eg Type Theory can be understood in Set Theory and vice versa, etc. I generally encourage people not to worry about these things.

Gattaca here we come. Can't wait until I start getting denied for service/opportunity X because some computer somewhere used DNA from a distant relative to determine I'm a risk.

This guy is popular with the CS crowd because of his views on infinity & constructivism I believe. I've studied math quite a bit and I don't really have any stake in the field (I'm not an academic). But modern set theory is a deductive theory. You have assumptions (axioms) and there is a formal reasoning involved to arrive at facts. If you specified set theory to a computer, I have confidence that it would validate the work of the academics.

I tried to skip through the video to find his reasoning.

sounds rad. I'm not believing anything until I see it.

Maybe I'm behind on the trends since I mostly just apply directly to companies, or through one of the major job sites (Indeed, LinkedIn, etc). I checked out those two websites and now I'm confused. You can't perform searches on grazily (try searching something, it doesn't do anything). Also it still lists jobs from over a year ago? The website seems like student's school project.

Most people do whatever they can get away with. Even on this forum I've seen people expressing the idea that "you should be able to do anything that's not illegal."

Where are the references?

We've been quick to adopt the technology without identifying or considering its future costs. If a chatbot can generate code that works with minor tweaking, does that warrant laying off one or many programmers? If an AI tutor can provide most of the information a student needs, does that mean we no longer need human instructors? It's become common to shit talk teachers, but I think education is more than just "delivering facts." So the observation is this: in some very narrow areas, AI will be highly competitive while significantly cutting costs. What I worry about is all of the intangibles & unquantified tasks that people perform that will be lost if we go in the direction of replacing people in the name of profit. And I know that some people here will argue that this hasn't had effects on layoffs...

So you mention how it's not the AI's fault, nor is it the fault of the people. But we have this corporate structure where it's easy to implement a change that may be detrimental in the future and that's difficult to reverse. I think that's definitely a fault of people.

I know that they have male and female accounts in the article, but it's hard to overstate just how bad the experience is from a male's point of view. And this is coming from somebody who gets regular matches & dates (just trying to provide context...).

So yea, it's terrible you get instant sex talk. But a lot of the complaints & negative experiences in the article go both ways.

Oh ok. I thought we were talking about the article (or at least claims that are just as bold):

"Deep learning works, and we will solve the remaining problems."

"It is possible that we will have superintelligence in a few thousand days (!)"

Don't you worry. It'll come even sooner, at just around 3.15e8 seconds.

>Alchemists predicted the transmutation of metals into gold for centuries, and on a sunny day in the 20th century, it arrived (a bit radioactive, but still).

So is Sam Altman the modern day alchemist? Making predictions based on faulty methods and faulty understanding (per your gold example)?

What will happen is that we'll shift the economy around based on inflated tech promises and ruin people's lives. No big deal I guess.

I'm sure you know that people in the AI community have been predicting big things ever since, I don't know, the 1970s? It's only 10 years away again. This time it's for real, right?

Hilarious.

What percentage of wars are fought with the intention to bring freedom in the end? A lot of wars are just the result of imperialism. I think that definition is somewhat artificial.

? People like to express their beliefs, even if their beliefs are unpopular.

>JK Rowling could have been the world’s most beloved author forever if she was content to dislike trans people quietly rather than loudly.

Seems like evidence that she prioritizes expression over status.

what is "legitimate warfighting"?

this is peak societal decline.

You have parents who should be able to have some say over what their kids do, but don't or can't. I'm assuming most adults can identify obesity as a health risk and prioritize their childrens' health. We have over-reliance on drugs rather than making lifestyle changes and adults who preferentially choose the former over the latter. The article also mentions that we don't have a long term safety profile for GLP mimics in youth and that they are potentially lifelong drugs (how is this on the table?).

What else?

Email contents and email addresses are both text. Yes, the concept still applies. The point is that email contents are almost never the same to begin with. If we're including the timestamp, then every email is almost unique by default. Mentioning that the email addresses are unique is making the point that we've identified just as many people [1], which is interesting. The statement "these 3.3 billion emails are unique" is much less interesting, because we've identified messages and not people. Also, people are usually more concerned with the information in the email rather than the count. Most/a lot of the value of an email comes from the information in it.

If I were to release 3.3 billion emails between random low-profile office workers (let's say) which contain nothing interesting, I'm not so sure that would make a headline.

[1] just as many or THEREABOUT*