It's a bit silly, because the company can say something very generic, like "position was already filled" or "candidate did not meet the positions technical requirements". As long as there's any objective basis, there's no good grounds for a lawsuit (e.g., if the company claims the candidates code during the interview wasn't good enough, how could you prove that they actually thought it was good enough).
etween 70%-85% of job openings in private sector are never listed at all.
All but the smallest employers in the US are required to list all jobs, and keep statistics on the race of those who apply for the jobs and the race of the person hired.
The "overly specific" job descriptions aren't all H1B scams, after all. (Heck, sometimes they're just stupid HR drones who don't realize listing the ideal candidate scares away real candidates.)
I suggest you go to the local batting cage, put on a helmet, and take a baseball to the head. Then, tell me that getting hit in the face by a battery at 130 knots is "needlessly panic".
I will happily go to someplace within 30 miles of the local batting cage, no helmet required.
The English language is VERY complex, and the additional rules governing its basic means of communication (governing its representations, and what the individual combinations are) can be somewhat arbitrary.
There are over 100 basic concepts in its functional taxonomic hierarchy, and a large number of manners of syntactic use that are caused by them, MOST of which are NOT RECOGNISED FOR WHAT THEY ARE AT THIS TIME, and for a good reason, which is what I'm working on atm..
Did you not realize there's a spec for the English language? Sure, it's not a normative spec, since there's no governing body (unlike French), but every rule and every exception to every rule is listed in detail.
The generally open way is to spawn an independent process for each known interpretation of an unclear term, then evaluate the conclusions of each thread at the end. If no expected value forms a coherent result, or more than one value forms a coherent result, use some form of requesting clarification.
If you have some reasonable constraints, this can be faked with array evaluations instead of individual variable evaluations. I think there is some fairly standard method of "bounded algebra" that works by retaining the calculated and upper and lower certainty range at each step, expand that concept and you can state Int x= [54,74,23]; with answers for each at the end of the function.
Informative AC.
And this is the mechanical approach for most of what we call "AI" these days: take a vector representing the input, do some linear algebra, normalize, do some more matrix multiplication, normalize, rinse, repeat, until you get an output vector representing the probability of each interpretation. Then adjust the weightings in your matrices based on whether you guessed right.
Oh, you're talking about the nonsense-of-the-week. The "torture" part was so hyperbolic that you lost me. As an aside, are you OK in general with CPS intervening if parents involve their kids in a serious crime? What, in general, should the state do with children when the parents are arrested and jailed? Doesn't seem like there are easy or pleasant answers to be had there, unless there are extended family nearby willing to foster the kids.
Perhaps I misunderstood you: "there's nothing wrong with taking people's kids from them and torturing them" is a classic straw man argument, so i assumed you were using it as an example of insincere trolling.
Doesn't seem like removing freedom helped much then.
Of course, once you surrender your freedom, you lose the power to resist being sent into violent situations. Chained to the bench in the war galley; sent to clear a minefield the easy way; forced to fight on the front lines, but not given a gun. History is replete with such examples.
Using violence to stop Nazis is one of the most warranted cases that there ever has been
There aren't so many Nazis still running around. They've mostly aged out. So you're not talking about Nazis, you're talking about "people who I don't like, and so label Nazis so I'm free to advocate violence against them". Don't do that.
When are you guys going to start a revolution with your pea-shooters? I heard that is why you need them: to protect us from a tyrannical government. So...when?
If it's ever necessary, it will happen the same way it did last time. Citizens with guns, mostly ex-military and led by ex-military, will take military armories on the first day of the war. Military bases are gun-free zones, after all. (Yes, really, a soldier can't even carry his own personal gun on base.)
Half the militia that fought the British troops in the Battles of Lexington and Concord were exactly the cliche - bunches of dumb, poorly trained hicks all related to one another. But half weren't, and they accomplished something.
If you don't know US history, it might surprise you that the war started when the governor sent troops to confiscate military-style weapons from the populace. Didn't work out well for him, in the end.
If people sincerely believe things you think are dangerous or evil (as opposed to actual trolling: pretending such beliefs to get a rise out of you), perhaps you have a moral duty to attempt to convince them otherwise.
Words and violence are our only choices for dispute resolution. I prefer words.
"That is the least that should be done to Kulaks."
"That is the least that should be done to counter-revolutionaries."
You are embodying the path that leads to genocide. You are attempting to "unpeople" those who you don't like, and calling for violence against them. Stop doing that - it killed nearly 200 million people in the 20th century.
The question is: why don't we see them here, in our system. If any one species anywhere in the galaxy had a program of self-replicating exploration (robotic probes are much easier than expanding colonies), they'd have visited out system and left some evidence of such. So where are they?
The obvious answer is "we've barely looked", even in our own system.
Occam's razor is "don't needlessly multiply entities", that is, prefer theories with the minimal assumed "things we've never seen". But that's a weaker statement than "never assume anything not in evidence".
Slashdot Mirror
It's a bit silly, because the company can say something very generic, like "position was already filled" or "candidate did not meet the positions technical requirements". As long as there's any objective basis, there's no good grounds for a lawsuit (e.g., if the company claims the candidates code during the interview wasn't good enough, how could you prove that they actually thought it was good enough).
etween 70%-85% of job openings in private sector are never listed at all.
All but the smallest employers in the US are required to list all jobs, and keep statistics on the race of those who apply for the jobs and the race of the person hired.
The "overly specific" job descriptions aren't all H1B scams, after all. (Heck, sometimes they're just stupid HR drones who don't realize listing the ideal candidate scares away real candidates.)
I suggest you go to the local batting cage, put on a helmet, and take a baseball to the head. Then, tell me that getting hit in the face by a battery at 130 knots is "needlessly panic".
I will happily go to someplace within 30 miles of the local batting cage, no helmet required.
And yet, they are vastly different crimes with vastly different penalties.
Small threat? When a drone is seen near an active fire, all aircraft are grounded until it is removed from the scene.
The choice to ground the aircraft due to an imaginary thrat is what caused the harm.
Except the drone was not in the way. It was 20 miles over there. But they chose not to fly.
They have caused aircraft fighting the fire to crash or to divert from their missions
Crash? No. Panic needlessly? Often.
GPP was asking has there been a case of a plane crashing because it hit a drone. You link stories of pilots scared of nothing.
When it causes aircraft trying to fight a fire to crash yes.
"When it causes", indeed. Contrast firing a gun into the air with firing a gun into a person.
The English language is VERY complex, and the additional rules governing its basic means of communication (governing its representations, and what the individual combinations are) can be somewhat arbitrary.
There are over 100 basic concepts in its functional taxonomic hierarchy, and a large number of manners of syntactic use that are caused by them, MOST of which are NOT RECOGNISED FOR WHAT THEY ARE AT THIS TIME, and for a good reason, which is what I'm working on atm..
Did you not realize there's a spec for the English language? Sure, it's not a normative spec, since there's no governing body (unlike French), but every rule and every exception to every rule is listed in detail.
The generally open way is to spawn an independent process for each known interpretation of an unclear term, then evaluate the conclusions of each thread at the end. If no expected value forms a coherent result, or more than one value forms a coherent result, use some form of requesting clarification.
If you have some reasonable constraints, this can be faked with array evaluations instead of individual variable evaluations. I think there is some fairly standard method of "bounded algebra" that works by retaining the calculated and upper and lower certainty range at each step, expand that concept and you can state Int x= [54,74,23]; with answers for each at the end of the function.
Informative AC.
And this is the mechanical approach for most of what we call "AI" these days: take a vector representing the input, do some linear algebra, normalize, do some more matrix multiplication, normalize, rinse, repeat, until you get an output vector representing the probability of each interpretation. Then adjust the weightings in your matrices based on whether you guessed right.
I'm pretty sure most grandmothers are too slow a quick-draw to draw on a stranger who's already pointing his gun at them. No equalizer in a gun.
Some criminals don't have guns. And if it's a Texas grandmother, I wouldn't take those odds on the quick-draw.
Oh, you're talking about the nonsense-of-the-week. The "torture" part was so hyperbolic that you lost me. As an aside, are you OK in general with CPS intervening if parents involve their kids in a serious crime? What, in general, should the state do with children when the parents are arrested and jailed? Doesn't seem like there are easy or pleasant answers to be had there, unless there are extended family nearby willing to foster the kids.
Perhaps I misunderstood you: "there's nothing wrong with taking people's kids from them and torturing them" is a classic straw man argument, so i assumed you were using it as an example of insincere trolling.
Doesn't seem like removing freedom helped much then.
Of course, once you surrender your freedom, you lose the power to resist being sent into violent situations. Chained to the bench in the war galley; sent to clear a minefield the easy way; forced to fight on the front lines, but not given a gun. History is replete with such examples.
Point to the place where I did that.
*Points*
Using violence to stop Nazis is one of the most warranted cases that there ever has been
There aren't so many Nazis still running around. They've mostly aged out. So you're not talking about Nazis, you're talking about "people who I don't like, and so label Nazis so I'm free to advocate violence against them". Don't do that.
When are you guys going to start a revolution with your pea-shooters? I heard that is why you need them: to protect us from a tyrannical government. So...when?
If it's ever necessary, it will happen the same way it did last time. Citizens with guns, mostly ex-military and led by ex-military, will take military armories on the first day of the war. Military bases are gun-free zones, after all. (Yes, really, a soldier can't even carry his own personal gun on base.)
Half the militia that fought the British troops in the Battles of Lexington and Concord were exactly the cliche - bunches of dumb, poorly trained hicks all related to one another. But half weren't, and they accomplished something.
If you don't know US history, it might surprise you that the war started when the governor sent troops to confiscate military-style weapons from the populace. Didn't work out well for him, in the end.
If you can't come up with ways to defend yourself without a firearm handy, then maybe you're just... too stupid to live?
What shape is your grandmother in? Does she seem likely to succeed in defending herself without an equalizer?
No amount of self-defence training and no guns can save you from someone who wants to kill you.
Security is non-binary. No security is perfect, yet it still has value. No plan can 100% always protect you, but effective self-defense sure helps.
That being said, almost all self-defence situations have nothing to do with somebody trying to kill you.
Words mean what I want them to mean!
Looking at statistics on death from violence, "Freedom" means "Freedom to be killed violently".
I'll give that up in a heartbeat
Those who would surrender freedom for safety deserve neither, and get neither. Do you think prisons are safer? Less violence there?
then what the hell is wrong with blocking?
If people sincerely believe things you think are dangerous or evil (as opposed to actual trolling: pretending such beliefs to get a rise out of you), perhaps you have a moral duty to attempt to convince them otherwise.
Words and violence are our only choices for dispute resolution. I prefer words.
That is the least that should be done to Nazis.
"That is the least that should be done to Jews."
"That is the least that should be done to Kulaks."
"That is the least that should be done to counter-revolutionaries."
You are embodying the path that leads to genocide. You are attempting to "unpeople" those who you don't like, and calling for violence against them. Stop doing that - it killed nearly 200 million people in the 20th century.
Believing that someone is an asshole gets you nothing. You have no right to harass someone, even someone you think is an asshole.
The question is: why don't we see them here, in our system. If any one species anywhere in the galaxy had a program of self-replicating exploration (robotic probes are much easier than expanding colonies), they'd have visited out system and left some evidence of such. So where are they?
The obvious answer is "we've barely looked", even in our own system.
Occam's razor is "don't needlessly multiply entities", that is, prefer theories with the minimal assumed "things we've never seen". But that's a weaker statement than "never assume anything not in evidence".