Vanth

Lol, you don't know how middle management works, do you. I have been "empowered to find ways to be more efficient" so unfortunately that means no budget for extra resources, use the AI tools that some Jr c-suite asshole pushed to justify his latest promotion.

I did choose to set filters on resumes loosely at the expense of having a larger pool for the video portion. I could have tightened the resume filters, but for this particular job, I decided verbal communication explaining how they used x tool mattered more than how well one copy/pasted keywords from the job posting into the resume. I would probably set filters differently for a different type of job.

I also don't think it's "cool" to have a down selected pool of 70. I think it's a sign the job market is fucked up and getting worse. The job itself is fine; it has one good benefit of paying for just about any advanced degree that can be stretched to sound "job relevant", but other than that it's mid.

no re takes

That's garbage. That's def an option someone selected, to not allow re-takes. Hopefully they just didn't understand the impact and course-correct if they use it again.

Knowing the workflow for mine was unlimited retakes made me feel a bit better, though I still didn't like the tool. So the person who chose to record from the phone with their camera shooting up their nose had every opportunity to rethink that choice. The person who opened and closed with a string of expletives chose to hit "submit'.

My company sometimes uses that too. It has your general keyword filtering on resumes, with sensitivity adjustments.

It also has a tool to ask questions, then candidates video record themselves responding (as many retakes as they want) and the hiring manager can review their video so they aren't bound by a mutual schedule. No AI element to that (yet) that I'm aware of, but could see the potential to screen the videos through an AI filter.

I don't like the video screening, personally. Neither as an applicant nor as a hiring manager. I've only had to use it once as hiring manager where the narrowed down by resume pool of candidates was still 70 people for only one position. I used the damn tool because I didn't see any other way to filter it down to a number I could conceivably interview live on zoom.

If one is down to 3-5 candidates, AI tools of any sort are inappropriate. As with all things AI, it's a tool and not an excuse to not do the job.

thefacebook.com isn't exactly a great name.

Yep, fully agree. Regionally, what is most popular. Also what is OP most likely to drive? If the family car is manual, better learn that.

Yes, I've found the versions with potassium nitrate to work best for me. And non-whitening too, I think they are a little less abrasive.

What helped the most though is convincing my dentist to give me a fluoride treatment at my checkup every 6 months. Where I live, they stop providing those by default around age 12.

Edit: ope, I just got billed for the fluoride treatment from my recent visit. Reason given: "patient is over age limit for this benefit". Hot trash. Our teeth don't stop needing fluoride at age 12, the insurance companies just don't want to pay for it.

So pay attention to insurance coverage and charging if you decide to try it.

Very directly. My company just had layoffs as a direct result of Trump. The company has contracts with the government and Trump cancelled many of them. The Legal team is also trying to figure out if the company will be paid for some work that was already completed.

The tarrifs and threat of tariffs and general chaotic instability Trump is driving around tarrifs is already affecting our supply chain and pricing. We try to make long-term agreements with suppliers instead of doing spot buys, and they are working assumptions of even more tarrifs into their pricing as a buffer.

And how would one know with 100% certainly a person killed in self-defense despite being labeled a murderer by the applicable legal system?

It assumes an impossible perfect knowledge. Or if not perfect knowledge, some percentage of error, making the murderer of murderers guilty of occasionally murdering an innocent self-defense killer.

It's almost like we're barreling towards a recession or something.

Murdering all murderers can't conceivably be "self-defense", making it unlawful.

Murdering murderers makes one a murderer. If one is going to ignore any context and mitigating factors, no, murdering murderers does not result in net good.

E.g., people who have killed in self defense have been tagged as murderers. Murdering them is not at all a good thing (in my moral framework, at least).

E.g. #2, murdering one person for Reasons does not necessarily mean a murderer is going to murder again. So murdering them adds to the overall murder tally without necessarily preventing any additional murders.

There has to be some element of preventing future murders, not just retribution of past murders, for this to even be a debate, IMO. And then there's the bar of simply locking them up being insufficient to prevent them murdering in the future.