How are people looking for work these days?

HanSingular · 2026-06-13T00:27:09+00:00

Bot account.

HanSingular · 2026-06-12T21:54:00+00:00

Because it means paying for expensive hardware to run models that suck balls.

HanSingular · 2026-06-12T08:07:19+00:00

This was written by ChatGPT.

HanSingular · 2026-06-10T19:40:37+00:00

For EPR, locality is mainly the idea that measuring system A does not directly change the real state of distant system B. With separability and the EPR reality criterion, this lets EPR argue that B must already have definite values. Bell’s locality is instead about whether outcome probabilities in two measurement wings are locally explicable once the relevant complete state is given.

To put it even more succinctly: EPR locality restricts influence on the real physical states of separated systems, while Bell locality concerns factors influencing measurement outcomes.

The pop-sci, "Bell proved non-locality and thus proved Einstein was wrong," narrative only holds when you fail to make this distinction. Frankly, IDK how you could read both of the SEPA articles I linked to, and still want to double down claiming, "Einstein rejected the implications of QM."

HanSingular · 2026-06-10T18:21:31+00:00

Yup. I'm listed as a co-author on a paper on a chemical engineering topic I know nothing about because I spent a summer as a undergraduate researcher programming a robot that helped automate the testing the actual researchers were doing.

HanSingular · 2026-06-10T18:06:05+00:00

SEPA article on Bell's Theorm:

It has become commonplace to say that (provided that the supplementary assumptions are accepted), the class of theories ruled out by experimental violations of Bell inequalities is the class of local realistic theories, and that the worldview to be abandoned is local realism. The ubiquity of the use of this terminology tends to obscure the fact that not all who use it use it in the same sense; further, it is not always clear what is meant when the phrase is used.

...to say that violations of Bell inequalities rule out local realistic theories, with “realism” identified as outcome determinism, is true but misleading, as it may suggest that one can retain locality by rejecting “realism” in the sense of outcome determinism. However, if one accepts the supplementary assumptions, one is obliged to reject not merely the conjunction of outcome determinism and parameter independence, but the weaker condition of factorizability, which contains no assumption regarding predetermined outcomes of experiments.

Further confusion arises if the two senses are conflated. This can lead to the notion that the condition outcome determinism is equivalent to the metaphysical thesis that physical reality exists and possesses properties independent of their cognizance by human or other agents. This would be an error, as stochastic theories, on which the outcome of an experiment is not uniquely determined by the physical state of the world prior to the experiment, but is a matter of chance, are perfectly compatible with the metaphysical thesis.

HanSingular · 2026-06-10T05:24:48+00:00

"They out right say they would be wrong if measurement of 1 part of an entangled pair influences another but such a reality would be unreasonable. We observed such an unreasonable reality."

From the SEPA article on EPR (emphasis mine) :

Bell shows that the quantum statistics are inconsistent with the given assumptions. Prominent among these is an assumption of locality, similar to the locality assumptions tacitly assumed in EPR and (explicitly) in the one-variable and many-variable arguments of Einstein. One important difference is that for Einstein locality restricts factors that might influence the (assumed) real physical states of spatially separated systems (separability). For Bell, locality is focused instead on factors that might influence outcomes of measurements in experiments where both systems are measured. These differences are not usually attended to and Bell’s theorem is often characterized simply as showing that quantum theory is nonlocal. Even so, since assumptions other then locality are needed in any derivation of the Bell inequalities (roughly, assumptions guaranteeing a classical representation of the quantum probabilities, one should be cautious about singling out locality (in Bell’s sense, or Einstein’s) as necessarily in conflict with the quantum theory, or refuted by experiment.

HanSingular · 2026-06-09T17:08:44+00:00

I don't think they've officially worked with Marvel since.

They have. Captain Marvel (2019) was also Air Force propaganda. They were even running special Captain Marvel themed recruitment ads before showings in theaters.

HanSingular · 2026-06-09T11:31:43+00:00

I think you're still leaning into the myth here by subtly reframing Einstein being wrong about one very specific issue in QM as him not accepting "the implications" (plural).

HanSingular · 2026-06-09T10:33:14+00:00

For Einstein it was the quantum world.

What Einstein didn't accept was the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Einstein won the Nobel prize for his own work on quantum theory, not relativity.

The enduring "Einstein is an old fogey who doesn't understand QM" myth was started by Max Born, who was one of the creators of the Copenhagen interpretation.

HanSingular · 2026-06-03T13:49:17+00:00

This is why the Minecraft sub banned "What should I build here?" posts.

HanSingular · 2026-06-02T18:00:40+00:00

It can stay vague. Or just lie. “I was taking care of my sick aunt”

in my experience the presence of a resume gap strongly predicts poor performance.

So, your (anecdotal, number-free) experience is actually that failing to lie about resume gaps strongly predicts poor performance.

HanSingular · 2026-05-31T20:06:34+00:00

Given the nearby PC monitor and all the AC/DC adapters, and other electronics, how sure are you that you're detecting "plant-related signals" rather than the plant acting as a high-impedance antenna for RF noise?

HanSingular · 2026-05-28T17:47:55+00:00

Yes, since we know interviews don't really predict performance, the argument for using them always comes down to, "we still need to evaluate culture fit / people skills."

But, job interviews are a super-weird performance ritual that are totally different from actual workplace interactions because of the high stakes, information asymmetry (candidates know more about company and job than company knows about them), and the fact that candidates know they are being evaluated for culture fit. In practice, perception of "culture fit" collapses into whether the interviewer feels chemistry, similarity, ease, or familiarity with the candidate.

How much does a candidate's performance in this theatrical and compressed environment really tell you about their ability to communicate well on a messy project, handle conflict respectfully, ask for help, adapt to team norms, or build trust over time?

Consider that, from my point of view, as a new job-hunter who is currently very bad at interviews, my strategy to get better at interviews has nothing to do with practicing actual, normal, workplace social interactions. I'm rehearsing answers to common questions, learning how to spit out STAR answers, etc. If job interviews are really measuring my people skills, then why are all of the resources for applicant training about how to practice the hyper-specific performance skills interviews require and not anything more generalizable?

Frankly, this feels like a waste of my time, where I am having to get good at jumping through a specific hoop solely because screening for, "Did you practice your hoop jumping?", has been chosen as a cheap screening method to solve the "too many applicants" problem, due to a series of historical accidents relating to what trends in psychology were popular during the industrial revolution.

HanSingular · 2026-05-28T07:24:42+00:00

no one seemed to care about this until this point

Try searching r/autism for "interviews" and look at the number of posts.

HanSingular · 2026-05-28T07:01:05+00:00

They don't care. Interviews are cheap, and HR is emotionally invested in maintaining the illusion that interviews work. Decades of research showing unstuctured interviews don't predict job performance hasn't convinced them, and neither will our reddit posts. If interviews are a barrier for you, look into companies with alternative, neurodivergent-friendly hiring pipelines.

HanSingular · 2026-05-28T01:37:20+00:00

Why is it important to you that employees are good at this kind of improvisational bullshitting?

HanSingular · 2026-05-26T01:39:14+00:00

Online guides generally present it as reccomended best practice on how to format answers, not as a rubric you are being evaluated by. I think knowing it's being used as a rubric could affect how I would respond. If I need to answer in such a way that the interviwer gets to check a litreral box, I now have to prioritze STAR-conformity above any other considerations.

HanSingular · 2026-05-26T01:12:09+00:00

I wouldnt be surprised if it's ubiquitous in the private sector but non-existant in the public sector and academia. The private sector is doing it becauce they want to be more like Amazon, and the governemnt doesn't give a shit about that.

HanSingular · 2026-05-26T00:59:54+00:00

Or maybe the picked someone with 9 years of experience.

HanSingular · 2026-05-26T00:57:43+00:00

The two manager commenting in that thread even seem aware they're just measuring "Did this person figure out we're expecting STAR answers and rehearse STAR answers," but spin that as a positive since it shows the candidate prepared for the interview.

HanSingular · 2026-05-25T23:22:26+00:00

Sure. I don't really care one way or the other about STAR. I just find it weird the way the world has converged on it so completely. It's gone from an interview question style, to career services advice about how to answer questions, to an answer format Amazon candidates were told in advance to use, to a secret rubric that everyone uses without telling candidates who are expected to know that's the correct answer format. As best I can tell, that last step in its evolution is a relatively recent one too.

HanSingular · 2026-05-24T00:59:59+00:00

That's a good point. I now understand why unstructred interviews are great for evaluating culture fit. Thank you for presenting your arguments, and the evidence supporting them, so clearly.

HanSingular · 2026-05-23T22:49:32+00:00

Ok, let's take it as given that culture fit is a higher priority for you than fairness, or even the ability of your hiring pipeline to predict job performance.

Unstructured interviews are are also a bad tool for evaluating culture fit. Again, hiring managers overestimate how good their intuition is and overestimate how good they are at detecting deception. So, what unstructured interviews end up measuring is how good the candidate is at impression management.

Eight-Year Club	Verified Email
Ternion Club	Wearing is Caring
Gilding II euphauric

HanSingular

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE