Regarding "Insist on camera ON phone screens.", DON'T do that.
Remember you try to hire a ${coder, admin, } not the next tv-news-presenter, beeing on screen is not a mandatory needed skill in most jobs.
By asking for something, that makes people uncomfortable, you will exclude a lot of likely brilliant candidates.
People who refuse to do video interviews may be for example:
- people who value privacy, not only their own, but most likely yours too
- people who feel very uncomfortable beeing watched by strangers and who think or even know that they will perform significant worse than in an audio-only interviewsituation
- people who simply don't own a camera
- people who use textonly computers offjob
- poeple who have experienced that your 'standard'-videochat-app may not work, maybe because they use linux, bsd, os/2 or nonstandard operatingsystems
- people who don't have broadband internet, yes there are still people like that
- people who pay for every bit send, and yes having a not so cheap phone/internet contract is still common in some areas
- people who feel uncomfortable to let strangers in their bedroom, even virtualy
- people who have disabilities or cosmetic issues that they fear may distract you
- people who have disabilities where moving and out-of-sync pictures distract them
- people who tend to refuse unreasonable requests and who therefor regard you as unqualified to be their next employeer
- ...
All of them have good reasons not wanting video interviews.
Given that the norm before remote work was literally face to face interviews and being seen on a daily basis in an office, I buy the "privacy excuse" for about 5 seconds.
The level of trust is simply too low - if being seen for a few hours over a web camera is that much of a dealbreaker for a candidate, there's plenty of candidates to take their place.
It's also about what you are avoiding. Its clearly a trade off, as you lay out. But then you are opening up another set of problems you will have to tackle. For the interviewer in the article, they prefer cameras.
It's not much different than choosing to interview people who will come into the office. Of course you are limiting yourself to people in the area. But employers know this.
Also, this idea that there is a single best candidate is rubbish. There are multiple candidates that are just as good as the next. And every person has their ups and downs, as well as trade offs. I also find it hard to believe that most employers are going to be able to tell the difference on such a fine scale as to not be able to choose certain limiting factors.
@CactusBlue: Cool, I realy like the reasons and as much I feel welcomed by the idea of moving to a new home, the same I feel strongly pushed away by the used images of oversexualizied stereotypical boobproviders, completely not cool.
And no, this has nothing to do with peoples love to manga and stuff. Many women just feel that they as a single person, and as women in general, are reduced to the size of their bodyparts, if constantly shown stuff like this - even when it's not meant that way.
Think twice, if that's the picture women get from your internet, is this their internet as well? I wonder, do I want to live where everyone judges women just by their bust size? And will your little sister want to live there?
The current internet is stupid enough, make the new places better.
I understand much of the concerns for what you're saying here, and I do understand that there are obviously some people who might be turned off by the branding. That is okay; we don't need to reach out to everyone yet, we do not want to take on a branding that offends no one, but appears soulless (like Alegria art).
I do understand the issue for gender equality as well, and as we have a diverse group of individuals who are involved at various parts of the project (they are mostly weebs as well and have no issues with the branding), and I'll make sure that our future branding will have cute anime boys as well ^^
In the future, I'll provide an enterprise version with the anime branding disabled and replaceable by your custom branding. in the meanwhile, if you have suggestions on what parts might be sexualized and might be offensive, please let me know!
Don't get me wrong, I like manga and anime as well. And it's not about gender equality. It's that these type of images (unhealthy big breasts, trying to force their way out of way too tight clothes) give a unwelcoming impression to women.
Even if a lot of your friends tell you "I don't mind", believe me, deep inside they feel at least slighty uncomfortable. Women learn to pretend, because if you speak up, you'll be excluded. It's that simple.
Next time you need to choose an image for your project, ask yourself: "whats the message I want to get across" and "do I realy need boobs for it?"
And if the second answer is yes, you'd be better working on a page for lingerie ;)
Absolutely agree. I now actively dislike this company and product and I don't even know what it does. And I'm male.
Regardless of the sex, identity, or orientation of the poster, it's crass, sexist, juvenile, and unprofessional.
Frankly as someone who lived for a long time in a place where there is a serious homelessness and drug overdose problem, I wasn't too impressed with the use of homeless people as a repellant either.
We build real-time extensible messaging platforms. I apologize that I haven't described it too much in this post; mostly meant it for my twitter audience who already have heard of it before, but I do understand that I've done a very bad job at describing what it does. I will make a post on it later.
> Regardless of the sex, identity, or orientation of the poster, it's crass, sexist, juvenile, and unprofessional.
We're not a project that take ourselves too seriously yet. The internet started off weird, and I think some weirdness is probably necessary. With that being said, we're currently using AI art in our publications because we don't have that much funds right now (we'll probably hire a designer at some point)
> Frankly as someone who lived for a long time in a place where there is a serious homelessness and drug overdose problem, I wasn't too impressed with the use of homeless people as a repellant either.
I used it as an opposition to "the public square of the internet" analogy used by X (formerly known as Twitter). The city I previously lived in had a decent amount of homelessness and drug problems (although probably not to the point of some US cities). If you have a better analogy, please let me know so I can make a better analogy!
Please correct me if I am wrong here, but did he take this position also when meta made occulus as closed as possible?
Running any opensource stuff on it?
Connecting it to an free operating system?
You could not even buy one here, at least not without selling your personal data.
I have a unpleasant feeling that this well intended talk is only a move to protect his future work and foremost business.
He is not anti-proprietary, he is just criticising the arguably moronic notion that open-source AI tools need to be banned or regulated just because they are "too dangerous" in public hands. That's all the argument is about.
John didn't own the company. He wasn't CEO either. He may not have had the clout to override the investors who would call shots such as that. And unlike every other VR software company circa 2011, Oculus made a LOT of money for its investors, mostly by being Apple-like with its restrictions.
His point is allow open source not only use open source.
"Be a Free Speech Absolutist".
> Open Source AI is in many people’s crosshairs today. They believe that giving free access to state of the art algorithms and models without any guardrails constitutes a danger to society, that the public can’t be entrusted...
> In the spirit of the first amendment, congress should make no law abridging the freedom to release open source software.
I.e. Stop AI from becoming the modern version of prohibited encryption. [1]
I seem to recall he wasn't happy about it, but don't recall where he said that or what the details were. Could be wrong, wasn't paying that close attention. He also left after a while without immediately moving on to something else, so it seems he was unhappy about something there.
Remember you try to hire a ${coder, admin, } not the next tv-news-presenter, beeing on screen is not a mandatory needed skill in most jobs.
By asking for something, that makes people uncomfortable, you will exclude a lot of likely brilliant candidates.
People who refuse to do video interviews may be for example: - people who value privacy, not only their own, but most likely yours too - people who feel very uncomfortable beeing watched by strangers and who think or even know that they will perform significant worse than in an audio-only interviewsituation - people who simply don't own a camera - people who use textonly computers offjob - poeple who have experienced that your 'standard'-videochat-app may not work, maybe because they use linux, bsd, os/2 or nonstandard operatingsystems - people who don't have broadband internet, yes there are still people like that - people who pay for every bit send, and yes having a not so cheap phone/internet contract is still common in some areas - people who feel uncomfortable to let strangers in their bedroom, even virtualy - people who have disabilities or cosmetic issues that they fear may distract you - people who have disabilities where moving and out-of-sync pictures distract them - people who tend to refuse unreasonable requests and who therefor regard you as unqualified to be their next employeer - ...
All of them have good reasons not wanting video interviews.
You, as an employer, may miss your best fit.