I don't agree. While yes, it's definitely possible the interviewee handled it poorly, I have seen enough poorly conducted interviews to say it's just as likely the interviewer was the problem.
My best guess is that as a mental health startup geared toward expanding access to therapy services, they were fishing for candidates who had some kind of experience with the industry, or who could prove their fealty to the mission. For example: "After grieving the loss of my brother, I tried to obtain counseling services. But my private insurance didn't cover that, and when I looked for supplemental insurance, I was stuck in a byzantine maze of options. There was no centralized and easy way to see what might be covered, and for what cost; all of it was hidden behind sales reps you had to contact over the phone. That's when I came to understand the value of the kind of service ACMECORP is looking to introduce into the market."
Well, to be fair, Garry's article was clearly 100% AI-generated. So perhaps he didn't even really post it; maybe it was just a rogue agent. Or, y'know, an assistant who posted without his authorization. Or perhaps Ambien was involved. Or, it was an Ambien-addled assistant who misconfigured an agent to post the article. Clearly not Garry's fault.
I am typically extremely skeptical of food-related studies generally, but Derek Lowe taking it seriously is enough to make me a bit concerned, too. Derek (not David as the other person said) indeed has a stellar reputation as you say.
Was doing some searches to look for where to stream the Super Bowl, and Arkansas's official website (AR.gov) came up with a ton of results. Looks like it may have been compromised? I haven't clicked on anything, as I don't have a VM.
Should be able to replicate by googling:
site:ar.gov super bowl
At least with traditional search results, there are some indicia of their trustworthiness: does the author/outlet have a history of deception, are their assertions well-sourced, etc. With a chatbot result, it's effectively a black box.
>There's about a million people making at or below minimum wage in the US. Not nobody.
I'm sure there are people who are working jobs with truly awful sub-minimum wage pay (under the table work, undocumented folks, etc) but I imagine the vast, vast majority of people working "below the minimum wage" are tipped workers who nominally make $2.13/hr but who simply do not report their tips.
Edit: based on the BLS tables that accounts for maybe 61% of those below minimum wage. But the data doesn't make a whole lot of sense. There are 63,000 workers in "management, professional, and related occupations" making less than minimum wage, and aside from CEOs taking $0 paychecks I can't imagine where those jobs are.
You can. In my very very limited experience you can sell it to collections for something like 80% of the value in a case where they have a perfected security interest. They will send a UCC letter to payors, who are legally obligated (from what my attorney tells me) to pay the creditor, absent some proof that they don't need to.
My best guess is that as a mental health startup geared toward expanding access to therapy services, they were fishing for candidates who had some kind of experience with the industry, or who could prove their fealty to the mission. For example: "After grieving the loss of my brother, I tried to obtain counseling services. But my private insurance didn't cover that, and when I looked for supplemental insurance, I was stuck in a byzantine maze of options. There was no centralized and easy way to see what might be covered, and for what cost; all of it was hidden behind sales reps you had to contact over the phone. That's when I came to understand the value of the kind of service ACMECORP is looking to introduce into the market."