I've read that too. Do we seriously believe that a random person can get into the Oval Office, for one of the most important high level meeting of the past years ?
I know they said that, but, really? Since when does an unauthorized person get access to the Oval Office? That would be a huge fail by the Secret Service.
Yeah, it's definitely a head-scratcher. I wonder how often unapproved people make it in. Seems like a major security risk to have someone unapproved in the room with that many high-level government leaders from multiple countries.
I'm wondering if they were given a pass by another approved news agency or something along those lines.
Can you elaborate more on this? I did not take psychology in high school, but I would imagine that such a course would focus on fundamental concepts where “replicating” wouldn’t even be an issue. There might be teachers who might bring up the pop-sci topics, but wouldn’t the meat of the class just be learning about theories or frameworks?
We're seeing a flood of fake AI generated job applications basically DDOSing our hiring funnel. Not sure how widespread it is but it has become enormously frustrating to sift the complete garbage from the good resumes. I'm sure a lot of good people have been accidentally filtered out
It's rough out there right now. Also, not even sure what the benefit or angle is for spamming fake job applications. State actors trying to sabotage?
Edit: We can tell that some of the applications are fake because we have people fail background screenings and often the attached LinkedIn profile is using AI generated images and job histories that don't add up.
> I've been a Full Stack Machine Learning Data Scientist DevOps Engineer for 3 years. I've used every cloud platform, every provisioning tool, every major operating system release (Windows and Linux) going back to 2003. I write code in every major language and have used every major queueing system, web server, application server, networking stack, and database engine. I read in binary, ternary, octal, decimal, and hexadecimal and process information at 12.9 exaFLOPS.
The reason you are getting spammed is because a) agencies are trying to secure an interview before they have a candidate; b) they are trying to convince you to use their offshore teams. Ask around inside your company if any offers from offshore providers have been submitted/talks are being conducted. DDoS-ing hiring funnels is a way to convince you that "no good people are available".
This is based on my own experience and conversations with hiring managers and recruiter over the last two years. I have also been involved in screening CVs. It's impossible to keep up with the flood of fake CVs.
When I see an ad for a hybrid role that pays £200 pd inside IR35 I know it is designed to "prove" that there are no suitable candidates interested in it in the UK.
> not even sure what the benefit or angle is for spamming fake job applications
Ok, tinfoil hat time. Suppose for a moment that the AI hype is true, and that two years from now everyone will have access to god-like coding ability on the cheap. Even if it's untrue, there are plenty who believe this is the case. Seems to me like there are two ways for that to go:
1. Coding jobs get scarcer and scarcer and the only remaining ones are populated people willing to work unreasonably hard to keep them.
2. Coders being the group with the most on-the-job experience re: driving an AI (acquired back in the days when coding was all it was good for) all quit their jobs to start their own companies--because why bother with the bureaucracy of a large company when you can now do the same work with four employees?
I'm not sure who exactly would want to influence the general vibe towards 1 and away from 2, I guess somebody who believed the hype enough to see 2. as a threat, but not enough to see it as an ideal outcome. Or maybe someone whose product is more valuable against a backdrop of an impossible-to-navigate job market. Whoever they are, DDOSing job applications would be a way to achieve that goal.
Its crazy at the moment, you can use bots to just automatically apply. Also the ease of Quick Apply on LinkedIn makes it so simple to just apply and not really consider if your right for the role. I suppose it feels like your making progress but your right it is spamming, I was 100% guilty of this for the first few weeks thinking it would be easy and quick to land a few interviews and offers!
Anecdotally, one of these AI generated people made it THROUGH my company’s hiring funnel, apparently HR didn’t check references. Not the worst performer I’ve ever seen, clearly a fake and they got weeded out after a couple of weeks, but it seemed way more like a “get as many remote jobs as possible and if you get fired from one then just keep the process rolling”
Exactly. LLMs make it worse for both the employers and the job seekers. Receiving hundreds of applications per day is extremely difficult to handle for a small company, especially that it's extremely apparent that around 1% reads the job description at all.
I've heard it put this way: Why would Stanford reject 95% of the people who want to pay them full tuition for the education?
I think Peter Thiel's answer is correct - The value of the education is similar to a night club's. It's about how long the line is outside of the club that determines how desirable it is.
It's not only the knowledge that people are paying for. It's the branding and the filtering that provides most of the value. So Stanford/MIT granting degrees to anyone that studies open source material will never happen because that dillution destroys most of the value proposition
Edit: Another point: what other business would not seek to dramatically increase supply of their product if they could only sell their extremely expensive product to <5% of the willing buyers? Any other business would invest significantly in increasing their production capacity. But with universities if they increase their capacity then the actual value they provide diminishes. Stanford is no longer Stanford if they have 900k students
Edit 2: My hope is that a university without enormous branding/filtering risk (Like WGU) could implement a model like this. Or a tech co could spin up a small attached accredited university that exclusively focuses on granting degrees to async learners. Like Amazon expanding their certifications they provide to granting an actual BS in CS if the student passes a bunch of exams.
I hear you, and maybe I shouldn't have used such a big name as an example, since if one wants a Rolex it's usually not to tell time. That's why I opened with degree as a service - some place with the financial incentive not to be a degree mill (and thus turn into University of Phoenix-esque) but who doesn't care how long the line is to get into their exclusive club, rather they care about allowing more folks to put "yes, I have BSCS or MSCS" on their resume without having to go through the traditional channels to get one
No, and sorry if I gave that impression. Mine was just BSCS and then I actually got about half way though the MSCS at Drexel because they were one of the few institutions that offered 100% remote MSCS at the time. Then, I had a change of circumstance and didn't finish it. I was interested in the GT MSCS but didn't pursue it for the same reason I didn't finish the Drexel one: it just didn't feel like the ROI for my situation was worth it
Yeah, someone like that would be perfect. I personally am self taught and didn't finish my CS degree and every few years I look around for an option like this. I'm an experienced senior dev and the opportunity cost of finishing my degree is always just way too high relative to any value it would actually provide for my career. I wish something like this existed.
The degree doesn't matter in most of tech but if I ever wanted to work for the government or military I'd be automatically disqualified for not having a degree despite having the ability. The tech interview process that many people deride actually provides the opportunity to get a great tech job if you just simply know the material. It's been a huge advantage for me
> The degree doesn't matter in most of tech but if I ever wanted to work for the government or military I'd be automatically disqualified for not having a degree despite having the ability.
You do not need a degree to work for the government or military, at least not as a contractor, and almost all of the interesting work is done by contractors.
>I've heard it put this way: Why would Stanford reject 95% of the people who want to pay them full tuition for the education?
Do they though, or do a lot of people apply to big name schools hoping to have that acceptance for cachet and not actually care about attending or even have the ability to attend for financial or other reasons?
>So Stanford/MIT granting degrees to anyone that studies open source material will never happen because that dillution destroys most of the value proposition
Presumably it wouldn't happen regardless because not enough people would actually pass the exams anyway.
> Stanford is no longer Stanford if they have 900k students
Is any specific thing worth it once that many people can easily recieve it?
I remember how well-respected certain technical certifications were a long time ago, and then you had braindumps, 3-day cram courses... and they basically became useless because most of the people that had them couldn't even answer basic questions.
Maybe I'm not following something, but I doubt very, very seriously that a college degree could be termed "easily" for any accredited institution. I'm open to those high value places getting all the best teachers, and unquestionably the networking opportunities are outrageous, but I still wouldn't expect someone to sleepwalk through a no-cost community college course, for example, just because it is free and not Stanford-Priced
Whenever there's information asymmetry that financially benefits one party you have to be cautious. It's been shocking how many times people I know have sought second opinions on recommended dental work only to be given a completely different recommended treatment that's thousands of dollars cheaper.
Example from a friend: Dentist 1 - you need ten fillings today! Dentist 2 - You have a few risk spots but let's just keep an eye on it.
Went with the second recommendation and didn't have any issues and that was a decade ago.
Virtually every study I read about in AP Psych in HS failed to replicate - including this one. That whole class in hindsight was at best a waste of time and at worst provided bad info to make life decisions on
The reputations of these authors need to be dragged through the mud.
Daniel Kahneman's Wiki page doesnt make him look out to be a fraudster, despite him confidently mentioning studies that never replicated, despite him signing off on fake data from other fraudsters.
That's not how science works. If you doubt the result, do your own experiment and publish it. The reputations will take care of themselves.
Obviously signing off on known-fake data is straight up lying, which must remain in a different category than simply doing a study that doesn't replicate.
I think you’ll find that if you actually read the papers themselves, they don’t make nearly as broad of claims as they’re purported to in media or the public consciousness.
Thinking Fast and Slow was blowing my mind until I started running into more and more studies that I knew didn't replicate. It took on a Freakonomics/Gladwell vibe after that
Gladwell is known for citing junk science and twisting reality by adding his own unfounded interpretations to research he's basing his theories on.
There's a host of criticisms of his work.
[Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Gladwell#Reception) is a good starting point.
This one is tough to know where to start. To hear him cover an issue near and dear to your heart, is infuriating. In fact, I think almost all of his podcasts ideas from the first season were terrible.
Mostly, he gets so into a story it's about the narrative itself. He sounds like a crazy child with a made up theory trying to force it to work.
It's hard to say from memory, but it was multiple episodes where he defended corporations and authority figures from legit criticisms, based on nonsense.
Just to be clear he doesn't literally say "and there, so I proved them innocent", but he might as well and these just weird one sided crusades (about David and defending the Goliath as misunderstood).
He's really not far from saying because people sometimes remember things poorly, Brian Williams definitely didn't lie (in a situation where many people lie).
He basically gave the auto industry a free pass, because it's challenging to prove an exact field issue.
Psychology and psychiatry, like osteopathy and phrenology, are parts of the pseudoscience branches of philosophy, not science. This makes them more like religious cults reading tea leaves rather than able to perform controlled and replicable experiments, make clinical diagnoses based on evidence, or measure or examine the organ they're supposedly treating.
According to NASA: If the debris is <600km the orbit decays within a few years. >800k can take centuries and geostationary objects on the high end (~36000km) can take thousands of years.
Most of the debris is in LEO so it could take decades to centuries for the debris to clear out
So the killer move would be to launch a fleet of sats above the debris field, and then launch self-destructive sats into the persisting space dense enough to make launch and persistence in that field hard.
Take command of the high space and make the low ground indefensible.
Just read a fiction book that had this as the premise in a war between china and the USA. China took the high orbits and blasted the low. Personally I thought it was a a very interesting twist!
This isn't just about extending how long you live but also the reduction of disease. That's something that seems highly promising about some of these treatments
