I think it's worth mentioning that while biometrics for identification have flaws (as mentioned in this thread, they're not 100% collision free, are not necessarily secret, and are non-trivial to collect), DNA has a different risk profile if it leaks than fingerprints and iris scans if you consider technology advances. DNA could let people (moving beyond government, since you should probably assume anything in a government database will be leaked at this point) target your family and not just you, it includes information that could let adversaries find out ways you're uniquely exploitable (for instance allergies, sensitivities, diseases) and in general its potential for harm goes far beyond impersonation or being used in court.
(On the plus side, I suppose, I think the story on storing DNA at the scale we're talking about is not fully complete. DNA does denature and it takes a reasonably good sample to get a full genome sequence, and fully sequencing and storing data for every person has other practical issues. The article itself only references using DNA results to "prove or disprove biological sex", which is much more trivial and while it's likely to come with its own problems and edge cases, is also much less information.)
It's encouraging to see browsers actually deprecate APIs, when I think a lot of problems with the Web and Web security in particular is people start using new technologies too fast but don't stop using old ones fast enough.
That said, it's also pretty sad. I remember back in the 2000s writing purely XML websites with stylesheets for display, and XML+XSLT is more powerful, more rigorous, and arguably more performant now in the average case than JSON + React + vast amounts of random collated libraries which has become the Web "standard".
But I guess LLMs aren't great at generating XSLT, so it's unlikely to gain back that market in the near future. It was a good standard (though not without flaws), I hope the people who designed it are still proud of the influence it did have.
Is there not a confounding factor at play that a more functional government would facilitate both more democracy and more legislation on newer technology? Is this notion that "it might be nice to help your target market have a generally working government to facilitate them being willing to divert money towards non-corruption goals and able to protect your market with laws" really that new?
(Here the model would be that democracy is something that countries develop once they have some OK government systems, not that democracy in itself makes those systems better, but it works with the causation the other way too)
I'm finding it interesting (after spending time in the EU where ChatControl is front and center in the news) that there's been this resurgence of interest in electronic surveillance and information warfare suddenly in countries that 10 years ago spent a significant amount of the news cycle decrying the US's NSA and China's internet police. What's changed?
This is a Canadian bill and the party in power are (relatively) progressive and (definitely) democratic, though they are to the right of the American progressives and to the left of the American Democratic Party. More to the point, they do not remotely own everything.
They are unlikely to pass it directly without changes though. They are a minority government, and the Conservatives have been backed by foreign actors in various capacities in election cycles and are a strong enough opposition that they'll resent the crackdown, and the leftists are generally not fans of the local telecom industry (or the Liberal pandering to industry in general) and will probably want either less protection for telecoms or more protection for individuals.
This is extremely common throughout the world for businesses that sell alcohol or variations on gambling - and while I don't necessarily think the advertising should be _illegal_ (in those cases with non-controlled substances at least), I've always been shaken that the many people involved in it don't seem to see how it could be immoral.
I'm unfamiliar with the business of finding illegal immigrants. Isn't the idea of detaining them that you're worried they might flee if they know they're going to be deported? If so isn't it counterproductive for ICE to make noise (announcing themselves basically) if doing a 5am raid for farm workers? You'd think showing up at the field in a separate bus and spreading out would work best.
I think the issue you're having is that taking it way too seriously is exactly what creates the feeling of belonging. There's a number of forums or clubs where one might discuss morality, myth, creation stories etc more like wrestling - fantasy roleplaying groups and fantasy writing circles often do include those themes for instance. But it's harder to feel true belonging through discussing whether your bard is an asshole for sleeping with a gold-hoarding dragon if you're 100% aware that neither bards or dragons exist.
Is there anything you do take super seriously? The environment, your job, parenting, a specific hobby or something? Something you think other people are missing out on by not experiencing? Looks like a club based on that would work better for you.
Honest question: for women, are there any churches or other religious or spiritual traditions that do not limit them or afford them a second-class status relative to other members? (This can be in terms of church elders/leadership positions or just importance in activities, speeches giving women good role models, etc). For instance Catholic traditions usually provide quite a few female role models (not least Mary) but heavily sideline women in actual church operations, whereas Protestant traditions have more equitable leadership ranks, but don't give as much space to women who are not in leadership. I am not clueful enough to discuss other traditions sadly.
It would be interesting then for similar studies to add a dimension in addition to self-reported loneliness on self-reported time spent outside the home. While it's likely that sedentary elders are lonelier, it's not a 100% overlap (some elders live with close family and some lonely people are still very physically active/outside). You would expect lonely, active people to have lower death rates than lonely, sedentary people with similar pre-existing conditions under your hypothesis, and it would be a powerful thing to prove because it's a lot easier to make people go out than to make them make friends.
I found the take a little too much on the doomer side for someone who presumably has several years of management experience. Yeah there's been a lot of social media posts and talking about the efficiency era, AI slop etc but over there in the real world you're working with humans. Some are going to be operating under a shareholder- or investor-derived goal to improve margins and some are not, but even for those who are "improving margins" looks different at every business (depending on e.g. current headcount, COGS, whether you use contractors, etc). I feel like it's a super reductive take to go "aaah, this current culture is anti-human or anti-empathy" rather than like, look at the actual actions that are being taken, who is benefitting, and what specific negotiating room yourself and your team have in this value context.
I find the actual advice here very worthwhile, though.
It is possible to do leetcode without practicing, even before AI. That said the structure of the Big Tech process is also quite long/multi-step with many opportunities to give up during, which helps select for drive. It's hard to do this effectively with shorter processes. It is however always a good practice to 1) design very hard interviews but 2) give a lot of preparation to candidates beforehand, even for non-leetcode interviews, as it helps filter who can efficiently and diligently use provided information to increase their performance.
Does EU-friendly mean timezones (GMT-4 to +3 I suppose), citizenship, or current residence? With this including contract roles it's a bit hard to infer. Asking because I really like the tech stack and there aren't a lot of point cloud roles around.
I think the post is getting at the idea that pedigree is not a reliable predictor of talent, but because it's a convenient and standard one, everyone uses it (which in turns reduces its usefulness). It's harder for a recruiter to fully experience the perils of hiring mediocre people, but they're definitely at ground zero for "what's on a resume is mostly not representative of actual talent".
That's definitely a valuable take, but it's worth noting that not everyone will make better decisions just by sitting through enough fires, and it's also possible that your good enough person will fail to notice some larger risk or market shift that the person you could've waited for would have, because they'd have seen it before.
Hiring decisions tend to be a hindsight is 20/20 proposition.
A more generalizable approach might be to consider - what are you looking for that most other companies either are actively putting off or passively neglecting, and what's the best way to identify the best engineers in that group.
To use examples in the post, if you're remote then you can get "startup experience - hard worker - impressive project - aces your 20 ridiculous interviews" by getting in front of people who live in Ohio and people who live in the Bay Area and low key hate Caltrain. If you're willing to pay top of band salary all cash, ala Netflix, then you can be a Bay Area Only Senior Elites Need Apply type startup.
What about other things? What if you are, in fact, willing to let engineers decide whether they address tech debt, like the post calls out? Or, you don't overvalue confidence and talking and can appeal to female engineers, quiet engineers, or in general less competitive types? What if you want hard worker startup experience passes pseudo-IQ tests, but they don't need actual coding experience measured in years and you think AI and training can bridge the gap?
Note, I'm not saying any of these companies will necessarily be more successful with their hires, but they're being intentional with who they hire and how that fits the company's advantage in a way that the "you and everyone else" profiled in the post do not. Like, figure out what makes you different. Figure out how that will make your people different. Then write it in the job description, black text on white background (or the reverse in dark mode), plain language, so it's obvious.
(On the plus side, I suppose, I think the story on storing DNA at the scale we're talking about is not fully complete. DNA does denature and it takes a reasonably good sample to get a full genome sequence, and fully sequencing and storing data for every person has other practical issues. The article itself only references using DNA results to "prove or disprove biological sex", which is much more trivial and while it's likely to come with its own problems and edge cases, is also much less information.)