Had to invoke our Data Transmission policy’s AI clause for the first time

Well, no one else comments in these threads, might as well.

Every email client I can think of off the top of my head blocks images by default. And I don’t see how that relates to your criticism of the whole idea of anti-phishing training

Clicking the link hypothetically confirms to the spammer that yours is a valid and monitored email address, and that you’re a sucker suitable for more targeted phishing.

Of course, it seems like every random user will also happily type their password into any text box that asks for it, too.

One time I failed a phishing test because I did a message trace and confirmed that it originated from our own internal servers.

Nuthin, furloughed.

Inventory management. Can’t secure what you can’t see etc

I guess that’s the orthodox interpretation, that it’s the eggs that were bad. But like, if you actually watch what he’s doing, he just vaguely pokes at them while they burn to the bottom of the pan, and then he serves them while they’re still liquid. And they don’t call him an accomplished cook, the closest anyone gets is elevator shaft saying “Ooh, a practiced hand!” in response to Riker pouring the eggs into a pan.

But…we’ve seen it. It happened in an episode. Dude can’t cook eggs.

Tell me you wouldn’t watch at least 30 minutes of Riker failing to scramble eggs.

He even did the full chest bump thing. And then in case there was any doubt, he did the whole gesture again.

Definitely the worst thing that happened during those years.

Fun fact, any game dev’s financial data can be stolen if you’re capable of answering my riddles three

I think TOS had as many mobster episodes as it did cowboy episodes.

That strikes me as highly reflective of google’s position of power; from the employer’s perspective, the point where the diminishing returns are no longer worth it is related to the point where they’re losing too many applicants from interview exhaustion. If you’re not google, not offering the kind of pay and such that google does, your break-even point is likely much sooner.

Additionally, from the worker’s perspective, the only-3-interviews rule is an assertion of our power. And, as an added plus, if enough people adhere to it, it will shift that break-even point even for places like Google, and resist the shifting of that burden onto unpaid workers.

I thought people didn’t like him because he said something stupid on twitter? Can’t find it now of course.

The question that raises from a process improvement perspective then is “were the first 3 rounds really effective tests?” Perhaps a better solution is not more interviews, but more focused interviews conducted by the people that actually have the knowledge and power to make the decision. (And if the knowledge and the power are divided among multiple people, another great improvement would be empowering the people with the knowledge.)

Yeah, it saves you money…by costing the prospective employee. There’s only so much we as employees can or should be willing to give up for free, and it’s 3 interviews.

I also question if more than that is really improving the quality of your hires. Far more often (100% of the time, in my experience), multiple interviews are more a symptom of bureaucracy; multiple managers insisting that they get to stick their fingers in the pie, rather than actually learning anything more meaningful about the candidate.

Never do more than 3 interviews. And that’s assuming they’re relatively short, maybe 1 hour apiece. Any more than that, and they don’t want you bad enough.

There are probably legitimate uses out there for gen AI, but all the money people have such a hard-on for the unethical uses that now it’s impossible for me to hear about AI without an automatic “ugggghhhhh” reaction.