Pretending to be a whale doesn't seem like a sound principle to me. Subs don't follow the migratory paths of whales, as far as I know. Now, we just look for whales that are out of place and send a drone out to check.
Maybe you're right though, that overwhelming the signal pattern, similar to how SDI/Star Wars was deemed moot.
Reminds me of that old joke about then-modern stealth fighters having the radar cross section of a bird, with a reply stating that if they saw a bird going at mach 0.8 they'd fire some missiles at it.
It's an incasualator. It causes the response to read as more casual/conversational, and less pedantic. But I guess you wouldn't know anything about that ;-P
It probably makes it easier for them to discriminate than without the video, but how is it directly more illegal under discrimination law than only hiring at in-person job fairs where you can see the same protected characteristics at the time of accepting a resume as can be seen in a video?
Regardless, yes, it’s bullshit and harmful to equity in hiring. I’m certainly not defending it.
Since we’re on a site run by YC, I should note that a version of the same “record a video” requirement is part of the standard YC application, with some of the same downsides for equitable venture capital investment decisions. Of course, a big difference is that venture capital investment decisions are entirely outside of the scope of discrimination law as currently enacted everywhere I know of, despite being very close in effect and power dynamics to hiring decisions in an employment context.
AIUI, case law has generally concluded that requesting videos is unnecessary and prejudicial, and therefore forbidden, whereas in-person hiring has a much stronger case for being useful for other reasons. If a company literally only ever hired people through in-person career fairs, that would probably get examined with scrutiny as well, but that's rare. I am nothing like a lawyer, though, and could be entirely wrong.
Understandable that there are a lot of thoughts on this and glad you pointed out that YC includes a brief video as part of the application - that's actually where we got the idea!
e.g. from the YC app
"Founder Video
Please record a one minute video introducing the founder(s).*
Make sure the file does not exceed 100 MB. Read more about the video here."
We're looking to confirm that applicants can clearly and concisely communicate by describing something challenging they've done. Our goal is to efficiently find thoughtful applicants.
We're proud of our team, with folks from a variety of backgrounds. Clarity of thought is distributed across populations. :)
It makes sense that you got the idea from YC, yes. Unfortunately YC is quite far from a good source on how to remove unconscious bias from hiring processes.
Consider clarifying that the applicant should not themselves be visible in the video, to reduce the risk of discrimination in favor of certain ethnicities or against others. To be clear, my suggested requirement is that the visuals in the video must support the content but that the video must not depict the appearance of the applicant.
In the hypothetical alternate reality where one can trust that applicants would not represent the work of someone else or of generative AI as their own, I would also encourage replacing the audio with text to speech, so as to reduce the risk of discrimination based on the perceived gender or the particular accent of the applicant. Unfortunately, I don’t think one can trust arbitrary applicants to be that honest, so the ability to recognize the voice from the video in subsequent interviews still provides some useful authentication value. I would like a better solution there but don’t have one to offer right now.
>You probably think identity theft is a customer's problem, not the bank too.
Huh? I'm relaying what the law considers civil asset forfeiture to be. It's not my opinion and it is not a "narrative". In fact, here's some commentary addressing the issue I raised.
"Technically, civil asset forfeiture involves a government lawsuit against the personal property itself or, in legal terms, `in rem`. As strange as it may seem, the inanimate property, whether a yacht or a bag of cash, is the defendant in such a proceeding." --- (https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/what-is-civ...)
If you don't believe that, maybe you'd believe the Justice Department on issue:
"Civil Judicial Forfeiture: In rem (against the property) court proceeding brought against property that was derived from or used to commit an offense, rather than against a person who committed an offense." --- (https://www.justice.gov/afp/types-federal-forfeiture)
What you ignored is the only opinion I expressed and the context of that expression: "Still, I would argue that the property owner's rights are often violated is such actions." How does this square with anything about identify theft responsibility?
> It's silly for a nation-state to sue cash, it should never have been considered reasonable.
Actually, the historical origin of civil asset forfeiture has some rational basis, though, as with most sensible legal moves, gets corrupted by those willing to exploit the letter of the law in spite of its spirit.
Nonetheless, unless there's something I'm missing I don't find your retort particularly coherent. I urge you to reread the original comment to which I replied and my reply and try again.
I was shocked when I learned that the majority of the Meteor Lake CPU is made by TSMC and that for the next gen Lunar Lake due in September EVERYTHING except the base tile (which is just a 22nm PCB) will be made by TSMC.
Wow. Then, they should sell off the fabs, just throwing in a commitment to use them for the older products as a sweetener. If they are using TSMC for the latest gen, the advantage of being an integrated company is gone; and both parts would be better off being run purely for their own market.
The US wants the Intel fabs to be a going concern for strategic reasons but even for them it would be better to put in the investment to make it so, than have them wither away inside intel.
I definitely want my tax dollars (CHIPS monies) clawed back from Intel since among those recently getting laid off is R&D, right when Intel needs all the R&D brains and hands they can get.
Intel just keeps going farther down the drain, much like another American mainstay, Boeing. At least Intel isn't killing hundreds of people in fiery crashes, or having pieces of their CPUs falling off during use.
Judging by some of the CPU issues coming out of Intel these days, the fiery crashes are not far off.
I remember learning about CPU design and manufacure as a kid and was absolutely astounded that any of this shit could be made to work in a practical way. In my eyes Intel was immaculate perfection.
Maybe you're right though, that overwhelming the signal pattern, similar to how SDI/Star Wars was deemed moot.