

Not needed for a company to update rules agnostic of any alleged bad actor. Honey coul end up completely innocent and it would still be a positive update by Google.
Not needed for a company to update rules agnostic of any alleged bad actor. Honey coul end up completely innocent and it would still be a positive update by Google.
What did it take them, 5 months from when the general public knew and who knows how long since insiders were aware? What a laughably long response time.
Initially makes me wonder how the employer could be so dumb as to give one employee so much access. But then I remember a former employer of mine did the same and worse.
Colleague was known for writing his comments in such a way that only he could read them, including mixing in German (US based company doing all business in English). He was also the admin of our CAD system and would use it as leverage to get his way on things, including not giving even default user access to engineers he didn’t like. We migrated systems and everyone was thinking, “this is it, the chance to root this guy out of the admin position” and… they gave him admin access again. Not even our IT department had the access he had. I left before the guy retired / was fired, this post is making me wonder if he left peacefully or left bricking the CAD system out.
My company sometimes uses that too. It has your general keyword filtering on resumes, with sensitivity adjustments.
It also has a tool to ask questions, then candidates video record themselves responding (as many retakes as they want) and the hiring manager can review their video so they aren’t bound by a mutual schedule. No AI element to that (yet) that I’m aware of, but could see the potential to screen the videos through an AI filter.
I don’t like the video screening, personally. Neither as an applicant nor as a hiring manager. I’ve only had to use it once as hiring manager where the narrowed down by resume pool of candidates was still 70 people for only one position. I used the damn tool because I didn’t see any other way to filter it down to a number I could conceivably interview live on zoom.
If one is down to 3-5 candidates, AI tools of any sort are inappropriate. As with all things AI, it’s a tool and not an excuse to not do the job.
Yep. Remind him that Kamala Harris has half Indian ancestry and he’ll be ready to colonize it right after Panama, Greenland, and Canada.
I’ve wanted to learn Dvorak for years but the article hit on it: I’m not and never will be native to it since I already know QWERTY, so won’t ever net the sweetest efficiency gains.