conciselyverbose

If you don't immediately throw someone who doesn't flush off of your property to never return, you're nasty too.

It's really not.

In poor countries sure, but not the US or Europe. You will get sued and you will pay if you do that at any scale.

But still declared them liable for the actions of their users.

Bad ruling, just less bad than it could be.

If I put the over/under at 10x male pirate to female, are you taking the under?

You should hate it as a manager. You're filtering out every single quality candidate because only a deranged nut job would even consider such an unhinged request. Submitting a video, in and of itself, proves they are not worth hiring.

You don't need to process every candidate. Just randomly take 5%, or 1%, or .001%, and do a real hiring process. Anything at all is better than requiring a video application.

There's also that.

But purely on the premise of "you should take the time to record a video merely for the pleasure of maybe having us look at your application", their expectations are way out of whack.

This isn't like when Google put scavenger hunts or puzzles or whatever in ads and gave job offers to people who solved them. The people who got hired by those ads were following through out of curiosity/the fun of solving the problems, and that wasn't the main/only way to get a job. It's just a new absurd demand trying to push the threshold of what's a legitimate ask.

The scary part is presenting it as a fucking privacy feature with no consequences.

Your company requiring video submissions for a fucking application is the easiest "this company is batshit insane and there's no possibility working for them could ever be worth it" red flag I've ever seen.

That's not abuse.

If the developers choose to support that hardware, they have a reason. In either case, there is no way to use open source software that's abusive, with the exception of stuff like Amazon taking an open source project, modifying it without distribution so they're not obligated to share their changes, and selling the product as a service (at a scale that makes it extremely difficult for the authors to compete). That's against the spirit of open source even if it wasn't foreseen when licenses were written and is hard to legislate.

Using open source software to save money isn't.

(Humans behavious still mostly eludes me though, totally illogical 🤨)

We're not rational, but there are patterns. If you're willing to do some reading Thinking: Fast and Slow is beefy, but helps to show some of the patterns of irrationality in a structured way, from one of the leading experts on human behavior. If that's too much, Thinking in Bets is a nice taster that still is well backed by much of the same research, but is shorter and more accessible.

This is like saying putting logs on a fire is "one or two breakthroughs away" from nuclear fusion.

LLMs do not have anything in common with intelligence. They do not resemble intelligence. There is no path from that nonsense to intelligence. It's a dead end, and a bad one.

None.

The actual "single core", "multi-core" were basically fine last I was aware, but they went so far into apeshit meltdown about the fact that AMD was offering better value than Intel with Ryzen (which is kind of back and forth since, but AMD is the reason I could get a 16 (real, capable of demanding single core loads too) core for $500 a couple years ago, not too long after Intel was selling 6 cores for more than that.) that it undermined everything else.

Anyways, UB's owner didn't like that AMD had good shit so he kept changing the "gaming/desktop/whatever" grade formulas to tilt the comparisons to Intel using more and more hilarious mechanisms. It started with a reasonable "you don't really benefit from games past 4/6/8 cores" and de-emphasizing super high core counts that hadn't really been an issue before, but it quickly degraded into obviously cheating hard by whatever means necessary to punish AMD, with even worse diatribes in the descriptions to match.