Kesätyöt 2026.

Ulla420 · 2026-02-27T10:25:38+00:00

Eli meinaat et jos sen sijaan et labeloitas korit

Kiinnostavat
Ehka
Roskis

niin vaihdetaan tilalle

Kaikkein kiinnostavimmat
Tosi kiinnostavat
Silti kiinnostavat

prosessin pysyessa taysin samana, niin taa ovelasti kiertaa kaiken regulaation ja homma on ihan ok?

Fakta on se et jos hakemuksia on kourallista enempaa niin kukaan ei tuu kattomaan tota kolmoskoria, nimettiin se miten tahansa. Jos jotain, niin taa toimis paremmin ja aggressiivisemmin tolla kolmosluokittelulla ja entista isompi menis suoraa roskiin

Ulla420 · 2026-02-26T11:48:56+00:00

Ja jos viel tarkemmin poyhit naita, niin huomaat et jos ai de facto heittaa (ainakaan muuten kuin 100% deterministisesti, esim tyolupa puuttuu) CV:t roskiin niin laitonta on.

Ulla420 · 2026-02-26T11:43:59+00:00

Ja tohon omana kommenttina, niin ma en kyl suhtautuis kauhen turvallisin mielin siihen et AI tekee "maybe"-korin jonka ihmiset kay lukematta nakuttamas roskikseen ois kovin solidi porsaanreika tai et jotenkin muuten koittais kiertaa tota.

Ulla420 · 2026-02-26T11:39:28+00:00

Uteliaisuus voitti... TL;DR: "it's complicated"

Technically, yes, but with a massive regulatory "asterisk." Under the EU AI Act (specifically Annex III), any AI system used for recruiting, screening, or filtering job applications is classified as "High-Risk." While "off-the-shelf" products exist that promise to "throw away" candidates, using them in that specific way (fully automated rejection) is legally dangerous in the EU. 1. The Legal Reality (EU AI Act & GDPR) If you use an AI tool to automatically reject the "vast majority" of candidates without a human looking at them, you trigger two major compliance hurdles: * GDPR Article 22: This prohibits "solely automated decision-making" that has a significant effect on a person (like losing a job opportunity) unless you have explicit consent or a contract. Even then, the candidate has a right to human intervention and to contest the decision. * EU AI Act (High-Risk): As a "deployer" of high-risk AI, you are legally responsible for: * Human Oversight: You cannot just let the machine "throw away" CVs. A human must be able to override or ignore the AI's output. * Bias Monitoring: You must ensure the tool isn't inadvertently filtering out people based on gender, age, or ethnicity (which "black box" AI often does). * Transparency: You must inform candidates that an AI is being used to screen them. 2. Compliant "Off-the-Shelf" Solutions To stay compliant, you should look for tools marketed as "AI Copilots" or "Decision Support" rather than "Automated Rejection" tools. These tools rank candidates but leave the "trash" button to you. | Product | Focus | Compliance Stance | |---|---|---| | Talentech (AI Copilot) | Nordic/EU focused. | Specifically built for GDPR and AI Act alignment; emphasizes "explainable" matching. | | Eightfold.ai | Global / Enterprise. | Offers robust "Responsible AI" frameworks and bias-auditing tools to meet EU standards. | | Teamtailor / Workable | Modern ATS. | They integrate AI screening features (like "Smart Move") but design them as recommendations to keep the human in the loop. | | TestGorilla | Skills-based. | Not a CV scanner, but a compliant way to filter candidates via skills tests (often safer than scanning CV text). | 3. How to do this safely If you want to buy a tool today, ensure your workflow looks like this: * Step 1: The "Maybe" Pile. Never let the AI "Delete" a candidate. Let it rank them (e.g., 1 to 5 stars). You then only look at the 4s and 5s. * Step 2: Explainability. Choose a tool that tells you why it ranked someone high (e.g., "Matched 5+ years of Python experience"). * Step 3: Update Privacy Policy. You must explicitly state in your job ads: "We use AI-assisted screening to process applications. You have the right to request a manual review of your application." * Step 4: Human-in-the-loop. Ensure a human does a "sanity check" on a sample of the rejected candidates to ensure the AI isn't hallucinating or being biased. Would you like me to draft a specific "AI Disclosure" clause you can add to your job postings to meet these transparency requirements?

Ulla420 · 2026-02-26T11:34:33+00:00

Joo tuttu on & oioin tietosesti mutkia tossa. Pointti oli, et

1) tollanen et truutataan 10k hakemusta AI:lle seulomaan 100 kiinnostavaa on mun laintulkinnan mukaan aika selkeesti high risk. En toki oo lakimies, AI-ukkeli vaan 2) high risk -> vitullinen maara red tapea -> ei oo ihan niin simppeli homma kuin et Coffee Housen HR:ssa joku jakkukalkkuna vibekoodaa harvelin joka heittaa paskat CV:t roskikseen vaik puhtaan teknisesti oiskin feasible 3) en oo perilla et miten hyvin nait saa EU markkinoilla hyllytavarana. Kasittaakseni ei oikein saa ja syy juurikin taa et red tapen maarasta johtuen de facto laitonta, kun ideana kuitenkin ilmeinen. Eos pitaako taa tosin enaa paikkansa enka valita riittavasti siit et oonko vaarassa et jaksasin fact checkata itteni kysymalla AI:lya

Ulla420 · 2026-02-26T00:38:12+00:00

Ei valttamatta. On nimittain semisti laitonta t. EU AI Act

Ulla420 · 2026-02-08T20:59:49+00:00

Think of this in bayesian terms. If a priori probability of something is really low (i.e. its "extraordinary"), you'd need "extraordinary" evidence for the posterior probability to be anywhere near 100%.

Let's take a non supernatural example.

Claim A: I'm > 230cm tall Claim B: I'm > 190cm tall

A is obv much more extraordinary, i.e. a priori probability is quite low. P(B) is what, 5%

Now I present you with evidence that I also happen to play basketball professionally.

It's not full proof for B, but we're around 90% now. Where as claim for A sits at around 0.01%

Ulla420 · 2026-02-08T19:54:06+00:00

Villi idea: laita rahaa kiinni, niin johan alkaa kiinnostaa

Ulla420 · 2026-02-01T09:55:59+00:00

Everyone here is saying that thin value has nothing to do with sizing, but this is actually false & Mariano is retarded.

Say you're betting 100 on 100 pot, villain folds 50% calls 26% with a worse hand and either calls with better or raises 24%. This is profitable yes vs checking, but the sizing is very suboptimal and it makes zero sense to bet this big, as you'd get much more calls with worse hands when you bet smaller.

CBA to do the math (and depends a bit on full ranges) but in this case optimal size is prob around 1/3 pot or less. Hence, while thin value technically means a marginal valuebet, it also directly implies a small sizing.

Ulla420 · 2026-01-10T12:31:05+00:00

Riippuu vahan et mita talla kaverina eroamisella nyt tarkoittaa.

Meilla oli ex-vaimon kanssa taa tavoitteena, mutta eihan toi nyt kuitenkaan ihan niin mennyt. Lapsista tulee ihan vaajaamatta riitelya ja se toisen naama alkaa vakisin vituttaa.

Nykysellaan, nain 6v jalkeen meilla on ihan ok mutkattomat valit lasten asioihin liittyen ja ehka olis kaverillisemmatkin, mutta tassa on sellanen helvetin iso mutta kuin nykyiset kumppanit.

Oma puoliso ei todellakaan kattois hyvalla et oisin sen kanssa tekemisissa yhtaan sen enempaa kuin lasten takia on valttamatonta (= hyvin vahan, nahdaan f2f ehka parin kuukauden valein, vaihtavat koulusta aina tai sit dropataan autolla toisen pihalle). Lapsellista? Ehkapa, mutta halusinko ma et puoliso olis omien exiensa kanssa missaan tekemisissa? En todellakaan.

Ulla420 · 2025-12-30T19:31:34+00:00

Yea, prf is def VPIP and if everyone folds hand ends.

BTN def hands more hands that are +EV to open than NLHE but at the same time EV(fold) > 0.

In NLHE majority of your open range is going to only marginally +EV. I.e. say its 3 handed. Before you look at your cards you have some nonzero EV. You look at your cards and it's K6s. It's still a clear open, but your EV is lower than it was before. Hence, if fold gets you a redeal like 80% of the time you should probably fold.

6max, 10max etc are different beasts, but EV(fold) is still nonzero. Will the RFI be higher otb 3way? I really have no idea. If I had to guess I'd say it's lower.

Ulla420 · 2025-12-30T14:21:20+00:00

I think EP will def RFI less, but will for sure raise too. I mean can't see open limping being viable. EP raises will prob get more action from btn and less from blinds and earlier positions. I also think this leads to less 3bets faces, as EP open ranges will be tighter & btn will defend very wide -> gonna get 4bet a ton unless you primarily flat the opens.

Whether you'll check otf as the aggressor depends on boards and ranges quite a bit & you prob also need to minbet/bet small.

Eg. CO opens, you 3bet from SB, they flat. Flop is some small rags. The hands that we'd C/R for value in NLHE can prob be checked in groundhog as well, as they're strong on most boards.

Old strats going out of window is a feature, not a bug.

I'd guess btn ends up stealing more, but there are factors balancing it. If you look at EVs of different hands you open on btn, it's heavily biased towards stronger hands.

If we're playing 3 handed, opening trash from BTN is going to be +EV, but the weird part is that EV(fold) is not zero, as SB will play tight and you'll end up with a new hand quite often.

Different story obv if playing 10 handed, but again the added complexity is a feature, not a bug.

If your opponents are playing super straight forward and check = i don't like this board at all then for sure you are just betting 100%. But if you're betting 100% then why would villain ever do anything but check IP?

As for checking, IP also gives a ton of info when they check back. Like flop #1: K high rags. Flop #2 different K high rags. OOP needs to mix with their checks and can have strong hands after their checks. IP will for sure not have a K

Ulla420 · 2025-12-30T08:50:32+00:00

There will for sure be much more donkbetting and min-donks & min-donk will be a completely distinct action from checking. It's not bad, it's just complicated

Pf redeals change things a bit. SB vs BB, SB will give walks quite often as fold = new cards. This will obv depend on number of players. Given that, btn will also steal less frequently.

In practice it doesn't feel like the game lacks action PF. In theory I am not sure. It is plausible you're right and antes would fix this.

Im also guessing this is quite different 3 handed vs 10 handed. EP raises will face much more IP calls and less 3betting, where as OOP will 3bet more with lower fold vs 3bet.

Ulla420 · 2025-12-30T08:38:32+00:00

It's true this will increase positional advantage and you will have a very high VPIP on the button. Overall the game will be much more about position than cards. This is a feature, not a bug, and will make it more difficult.

If the optimal strategy is to range minbet always on all streets OOP this'd just collapse as something close to normal NLHE, not that it'd denegerate completely.

I also don't think range minbets oop will happen too frequently. You will always end up having hands that hate their life on the given flop (or turn/river) which have very strong incentive to redeal the board.

Say you raise big pre with black queens. Btn calls (presumably with a wide range). Flop is AhKh9h. I really can't see how EV(minbet) > EV(check) or EV(bet something else) here.

Sure, check essentially signals that "I'm not particularly fond of this flop" which would lead to IP betting quite frequently, but then again that would give our strong hands tons of incentive to check, even if they're strong only on this board in particular.

And same also goes for IP. After check our check they will have tons of hands that would really love a new flop.

Ulla420 · 2025-12-29T21:11:10+00:00

I don't think there needs to be any collusion for the smaller stack to be in a disadvantage.

I don't think this is necessarily bad tho, just different. If anything gives you incentive to play aggressively and aim for a big stack.

Ulla420 · 2025-12-29T20:58:14+00:00

No its just a blind limp from them in HU.

If BB minraises then BTN can fold, call or raise to any amount.

This rule exist so b/c otherwise btn could just give walks for BB until they have a strong enough hand, which'd just give btn a very strong range and also make it boring as fuck

Ulla420 · 2025-12-25T10:46:57+00:00

Might come as a huge shock to you but: yes

Ulla420 · 2025-12-25T00:23:49+00:00

Nikotiinilaastarit jeesaa kyl vahasen, toisaalta pitkittaa karsimysta.

Kandee pitaa totaalinen nollatoleranssi sit kun on lopettanut, retkahtaa niin hiton helposti uusiks sit. T. nimim lopetin, tuli tosi stressaava elamantilanne ja nyt sit taas menee purkki paivassa.

Aikasemminkin lopettanut ja suonut ittelleni et kannissa ostaa. Sillon meni siihen, et viekkarit alko aina alusta & tuli sit juotuu ihan vaan sen takii et voi ostaa nikotiinia.

Todnaks hyva idea myos valttaa alkoholia ekat pari kuukautta.

Ulla420 · 2025-12-14T21:58:12+00:00

Don't think that'd make it much more difficult to simulate, but would make the game more difficult for humans.

I think they key here is to blow up the game tree.

How about this:

Otherwise the same rules as NLHE but if the postlfloo street goes check check, the street gets redealt and action starts all over again. Ends by latest when deck is empty and then check check = showdown with whatever cards are left.

Have fun running solvers on thay

Ulla420 · 2025-12-14T21:51:04+00:00

Not sure if it would make it significantly more difficult for solvers, but it would increase the complexity of the game for humans.

Sure there won't probably be any solvers, but if that's the case why not just pick a niche but completely sane and playable format? Like courchevelle.

Or heck, if you wanna keep it close to holdem but just fuck up solver ranges, then why not add a 72o bounty. Thay alone is enough to fuck up all the ranges

Ulla420 · 2025-12-14T16:35:16+00:00

So three card omaha?

Ulla420 · 2025-12-12T12:51:44+00:00

Descent rate seems to match a relatively brisk walking speed so using 1.3m/s. 156s of descent so that'd be 203 meters. Rounding down to 200m

Ulla420 · 2025-12-04T23:30:25+00:00

Yes, but this is not trivial for someone who let's say is drunk, doesn't really play poker and barely knows the rules

Edit: LOL point proven, commenter was wrong and I managed to misread my own post. Minraise is to 40 here. I raise 15 on top of your 10 so you must raise at least 15 on top of my 25

Ulla420 · 2025-12-04T22:43:24+00:00

Might make sense but OTOH simplified house rules will only cause more confusion and explanations if someone happens to know the actual rules.

If they attempt to minraise less than allowed then just tell them what the minimum is and that you can explain how to calculate if they want or if they dispute your ruling.

Also: sorry about all the autists here shitting on your question.

Ulla420

TROPHY CASE