withdavidli

This would only work for so long. As a company scales up there are going to be legal complexities in justifying and analyzing why a person was hired.

I can definitely see a tiered service where if a person got an offer they would be more sought after by companies.

It's a time trade off. Candidates can also get interview fatigue so skipping the initial interview save around 45-60min per company interviewing at.

Candidates that have obvious signals (example, worked at a fang) won't really need this service. But there are likely plenty of good candidates that get rejected at the resume review stage because their experience doesn't look that they can do the job even if the candidate is perfectly able.

I think this is a smart way to scale up an applicant pool with minimal resources. My opinion is based on being in recruiting and doing analytics from startups to big tech.

It might be worse than former TripleByte interviews in figuring out signals, but it is much less people and cost intensive to scale. I think it's a smart trade off for a start up.

Most first interviews cover the same set of questions. For engineers, it's usually can this person actually code / leet code knowledge.

On-site interviews have a lot of variables, ranging from types of questions, interviewers, and hiring committee for an offer to be extended. I can see why being rejected at 2nd/on-site stage doesn't matter much.

Had the same reaction when I read that line. It's the same as saying scoring in the top 1% percentile is within your control. And how are kids even suppose to know about these schools at a young age? I would assume it's the parents that needs to be knowledgeable and push their children to those admission exams.

The author certainly seems to have a tormented school career. It's to be reminded that when in that situation, survival and escapism often takes priority than figuring out the best high school to go to.

That would be great, but reality is that product development at many places depends on a few people to be aware of accessibility in the design process.

And there are situations outside of product usability it will be helpful to know what is commonly seen. For example, when someone asks you to pick up X item at a store that is a color that you have a hard time identifying.

Not sure why you're getting downvoted.

This was my first thought. The posts above mention using an app to read RGB. An overlay using AR would bring immediate value, I would think.

My colorblindness is mild. Can tell most colors but fail the petri dish color test around round 3-4, nothing pops out at me.

>You pulled those numbers out of your ass...

They're using the percentage in the original comment/study and transferring it to the recent example.

That doesn't mean that 41% would not be convinced it could be replicated though since it's likely example related.

I did the endurance race track with a car that I knew could win, set it on auto with the computer to do the 100-200 laps. These days I think you can speed up the auto play by 5-10x.

Not a fun way to play when all there is is grind.

It's a known interviewing service. The implication by many would be that you took the test because you were interested in interviewing.

Is there another big use case that I'm missing from their product? Interested in hearing your interpretation of a person that has a profile on an interviewing service. My assumption would be the main objective of a user signing up for a service would be using the main product the service provides.

The type of relationship is different, but the example still holds. Having a profile at all can and likely will be viewed as an indicator of intention to leave the current relationship for a new relationship. This was how it was viewed having a resume profile on sites like Monster and CareerBuilder before LinkedIn made it the norm to have a public resume.

Time frame is also very important. Example, a user has been with the company for over a decade, but the product has only been around for a few years. Or if one of the "achievements" was a test that was added recently.

If I remember correctly, that was for low level weed dealers, not scamming financial systems. A successful identify theft of a middle or upper income family will reap a payout much greater than a fast food worker.

I put zero reliance on external forces making the change I want to see and make decisions without this being a factor. It cuts out false hope.

If I'm not willing to pay the price, I should not expect change.

Disclaimer that I use similar remarks to the quote you disagree with. This is with the understanding that the price that needs to be paid will literally take lives at times, and that there is little to no fairness at who bears that cost.

That being said, you seem to be quite active politically and doing more than most in this arena. At what point do you give up and move to where you think you'll be represented? This is assuming you have the means to go elsewhere. Some people operate on moving to where they are treated best, that includes the option of a different country.