aristidedn t1_jdzd2wd wrote

I'm not involved in hiring decisions or in measuring hiring success, so I can't produce data showing that the process produces better teams.

What I can say, however, is that this is an incredibly expensive process for tech companies. If they are engaging in this process, it's because they have data indicating that it produces better results and that it's worth the investment.


aristidedn t1_jdy1w2o wrote

> Google and Facebook do 2 rounds of interviews.

Not quite. In terms of rounds, as a PM at Google I had a recruiter screening round, a first interview round, a round of 5 interviews (that happened over multiple days in my case, but were not "gated" by one another), and a round of "team matching" interviews.

So there are really four "rounds" of evaluation, and in my case (not necessarily the same for others in my role) 9 interviews/screenings in total.


aristidedn t1_jdy06wn wrote

Hi, PM at Google, here.

When I was being considered for the role, I went through the following:

  • Recruiter screening (not an interview, per se; basically a pass/fail conversation about your experience)
  • Interview 1 (the first actual interview, succeeding here means you go on to the full interview process)
  • Interviews 2-6 (each lasted 45 minutes and evaluated a different high-level proficiency)
  • Three placement interviews (these are interviews with specific hiring managers once Google has decided you're worth hiring; they continue until you find a team you "match" with)

So, in total, I had 9 interviews or screenings before the hiring process concluded.

This is not unusual for a top-tier tech firm hiring PMs and engineers. Other roles likely have fewer hurdles, but PMs and engineers are arguably the most critical roles and receive the highest compensation.

I think a lot of people outside of tech don't have an understanding of what tech interviews are like. Interviews outside of tech - especially for lower-level roles - are often just conversations about your experience and personality, plus some discussion of what the job entails. Interviews in tech are tests. You will be asked to solve hard problems - many of them deliberately crafted to have no clear correct answer - and you will be judged on how you think.


aristidedn t1_iybxlbn wrote

Trump is currently under investigation by the Manhattan GA for tax crimes, under investigation by the NY State AG for tax crimes, under investigation by the Fulton County DA for election-related crimes, under investigation by the DOJ for election-related crimes, and under investigation by the FBI/DOJ for national security crimes.

And the above doesn't include any of the civil lawsuits he's facing.


aristidedn t1_ius9to8 wrote

Reply to comment by jeango in [Image] The Maturity Climb by raytanwl

> I beg to differ.

Oh dear.

> Wanting the debate to end up with a « correct answer » is imho a narrow view of what could be the point of debate.

I'm sure that there are other things that can be gained from debate beyond simply the correct answer to the question at hand - experience in argumentation, an increased sense of perspective or empathy for those on the other side, etc.

But you have to guard against people weaponizing the "virtue of debate" as a way of forcing the relitigation of settled topics in order to prevent progress.

For example, take climate change. There is essentially zero disagreement among those researching climate change that anthropogenic factors contribute significantly to climate change. And they got to that consensus in the first place through debate. But there are people (who aren't part of those professional research communities) who have a vested interest in constantly revisiting the debate on a society-wide level, because they don't like that the question is settled. And they know that if they can make it seem like the question is still open and still needs to be answered, they can force the professional research community into wasting its money, time, and energy on "debate" rather than progress.

The same holds true for gay marriage, evolutionary theory, gun control, etc.

When you allow the people on the losing side of a debate to perpetually insist on rematch after rematch, you rob yourself of the chance to actually get meaningful work done.

If you want experience debating, debate something worthwhile. If you want to gain empathy for groups you aren't a part of, listen to them.

> Same with the question of wether the debate is worth having, you can’t say that « topic A » is not worth debating in an absolute sense.

You can, at the societal level.

> It may not be of interest to you, but could be of interest to someone else.

That's great! Let them worry about finding someone to debate settled topics with. It isn't your moral or ethical obligation.

> Because essentially, what you’re saying is that philosophy shouldn’t exist.


You need to spend a lot more time thinking this through.


aristidedn t1_iurth6z wrote

Reply to comment by jeango in [Image] The Maturity Climb by raytanwl

Being open to debate is only a virtue when the debate in question is worth having. Being open to debate in all things is a way to easily get dragged backwards into arguments over settled topics.

Debate is a tool to arrive at correct answers to hard questions. Once an answer is arrived at - and with enough rigor that the answer is reasonably certain to be correct - continuing to debate it is a poor use of one's time. There are other hard questions that need answering.


aristidedn t1_iukb71u wrote

> That will put an end to all this.

No, it won’t. Nothing will. Evidence doesn’t end conspiracy theories. It just causes the people who hold the conspiracy theories to become increasingly detached from reality as they try to justify why the evidence must be fake.


aristidedn t1_iujj9iv wrote

Your answer is right there in the article:

> DePape told police that other members of Congress would see that there are consequences to their actions when Pelosi, with broken kneecaps, would get “wheeled into” the House chamber

He wants to alter the political behavior of Congressional representatives through violence and intimidation.


aristidedn t1_irbpius wrote

> I have a graduate degree in Health Informatics.


Because two days ago (your comment was removed, but it's still visible in your comment history) you were claiming to be a current Master's student. I guess you just graduated yesterday, huh.

(Hilariously, one of my actual degrees - not in-progress - is in Informatics, though in my case the specialization is in HCI. But everyone in my program got plenty of exposure to Health Informatics as well, which is how I know that it has nothing to do with the study of gun violence and everything to do with designing shit like health information systems.)

> What's yours?

In addition to my degree in Informatics, I have a degree in criminology and the law from one of the top three programs in the country. I have work experience in a major metropolitan county statistician's office, and while there I studied and authored reports on links between localized violent crime and education outcomes. I currently work for Google on the company's efforts to combat and document, among other things, violent extremism/radicalization, hate, and threats of violence.

> Why are you trying to turn this in to some kind of measuring contest.

I'm not interested in measuring anything. I'm interested in highlighting that you have no background in this area, but have convinced yourself that your opinion is well-founded. When you encounter a topic of significant complexity that you are yourself not well-versed in, the correct approach is to defer to the consensus of experts in the field.

I'm not claiming to be an expert in this field - despite my experience, I don't even come close to that mark - but I have enough background in it to be able to identify who the experts are and to have a strong sense of what their consensus is. And it's essentially the exact opposite of the claims you've made here.

> Why are you attempting to talk down to people and calling them a 'child'.

Because you deserve to be talked down to. If you don't want to be condescended to, don't pretend at knowledge or understanding you flat-out don't have.

> Take yourself off the pedestal you're no better than anyone else on here.

On this topic, I'm better equipped to discuss it than you are. That doesn't make me "better", but it doesn't make our opinions equally valid.

> I feel if you were to have these conversations face to face and not online- you wouldn't act so immature and maybe have a little respect for your fellow human.

I have plenty of respect for people in general. But you lost mine very early on.

> I don't know if you see people who disagree with you on an issue not worthy of respect, but it's a very toxic way to have dialogue or engage in conversation.

We don't merely disagree on an issue. You believe in a set of fundamental precepts that are opposed to mine. You don't believe in intellectual honesty. You don't believe in deference to expert consensus. You form opinions first, then justify them post hoc.

If we simply disagreed on an issue, I'd have corrected you, you'd have acknowledged the correction, and that would have been that. But your fundamental beliefs prevent you from acknowledging that your position on this issue was unfounded (bordering on flat-out dishonest, to be frank).

> What are you talking about. I have a different view on gun control than you do. That doesn't make me some kind of mentally ill individual.

No one called you mentally ill. Being radicalized isn't an illness.

> It just means we have different opinions, and that's fine. People are going to disagree with you, and it would be wise to learn how to cope with the fact that not everyone has the same worldview as you do. It seems almost impossible to even have a conversation on the actual issue at hand with all of the personal insults here. You clearly don't have the capacity to have a decent conversation with someone who respectfully disagrees with you.

You might respectfully disagree with me, but I don't have the same respect for you. Why should I? I believe that you have arrived at your opinions in a cowardly, dishonest, self-centered way, that your beliefs contribute to and preserve a culture that causes tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths annually, and that you lack the empathy to recognize this.

> I have deeply personal life experience regarding suicide and people close to me.

Everyone does.

> Even with firearms access, that isn't always how people do it- and for certain, having a firearm isn't what drove them to do it.

Yes, it is. In many cases, the presence of a firearm in the home makes the difference between committing suicide and not committing suicide. In addition to the unique qualities of suicide-by-firearm (immediacy, no opportunity for regret, no opportunity for discovery, etc.), the fact that suicide-by-firearm requires no planning when a gun is available means that it takes advantage of what are known as suicidal crises - short periods on the order of minutes where suicidal ideation is most intense and the likelihood of carrying out a suicide attempt is strongest. Most methods of committing suicide either require more planning time than the crisis period allows for, or offer a window for regret or discovery (e.g., drug overdose) that is longer than the crisis period.

Again, if you knew anything at all about suicide as a phenomenon, you wouldn't have said the things you just said.

EDIT: Since KaserneX31 decided to block me immediately after responding (weird choice, buddy, since that prevents the user from reading the comment!) I'll go ahead and respond here.

> I'm 6 credits (2 electives) away, also from a top university. Didn't think it would matter, but I guess it does to you.

"My relevant experience is I hold a degree in X" vs. "My relevant experience is I'm literally still a student" is a pretty big difference to just about anyone, my dude.

You tried to pull a fast one and got caught.

> You have your mind made up based on your sources (which I would consider biased)

My sources are a veritable mountain of peer-reviewed, prominently published scholarly journal articles either published by or collated by actual Harvard University and written by some of the leading researchers in the field of violence epidemiology. There literally are no sources on the planet more objectively authoritative on the subject matter.

You consider them biased because they conclude things that make you uncomfortable.

> and personal life experiences,

What personal life experiences? Are you referring to my academic experience, my professional experience, or something else?

> I have mine made up based on my own personal life experience

What personal life experiences? Are you referring to your (still incomplete) academic experience, your professional experience as a person who got paid to shoot guns, or something else?

> and sources (which you would consider biased).

Maybe! It depends! Are your sources a gigantic collection of peer-reviewed academic research published by dozens of highly-qualified researchers operating at the forefront of their respective fields?

Or is your source a bunch of stuff written by John Lott for his gun nut Patreon subscribers?

> I would be careful to label people who disagree with you as radicals (I assume you're very different in person than online with Reddit).

I don't label people who merely disagree with me as radicalized. For example, there are a ton of people who think mayonnaise is great. I disagree! I think it's pretty bad. But I don't think mayo-lovers are radicalized for disagreeing with me.

But you? Yeah, buddy. You have all the hallmarks of a radicalized person.

And I'd know.


aristidedn t1_irb1bor wrote

> What is “the household”?

This is a research study; we're talking about the average household.

> Certainly not his household,

How would he know?

> and not my household either.

How would you know?

Again, every person can be described as a "responsible gun owner", right up until the moment they aren't.

You're free to believe that you'll beat the odds, but that isn't what most people would call a wise choice.

The belief that a person is more likely, statistically, to use a firearm in the household to successfully defend themselves or their family from harm is simply false. A person is more likely to be accidentally injured or killed by a firearm in the household, assaulted or murdered by another member of the household with a firearm in that household, assaulted or murdered by a non-member of the household with a firearm in that household, or to commit suicide with a firearm in that household than they are to heroically fend off a mortal threat.

You've allowed the power fantasy of the self-sufficient protector/killer to overwhelm your ability to think clearly. It's more important to you to maintain that fantasy than it is to actually ensure your safety or the safety of your loved ones.

If it makes you feel any better, there are literally millions of men just like you in America.


aristidedn t1_ira9gvx wrote

> Very little knowledge?

That's correct.

> This is the problem about assuming someone's background on the internet.

I'm not making any assumptions. If you had an appropriate level of background in this area, your comment would have reflected that.

> Unless you also served in the infantry

Child, your comment history is right there. The fact that you have military experience wasn't a secret.

> please tell me more about how my own weapon makes me unsafe, and how I have no background or knowledge on this subject.

The presence of a weapon in the household makes those residing their less safe than if there were no weapon in the household.

And the fact that someone taught you to shoot a gun has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about. What is your background in criminology? Violence or suicide epidemiology? Stats? Research methodology?

You think that being in the army makes you qualified to discuss gun control? Are you out of your skull?

> Please tell me more about who these experts are I should listen to.

Well, you can certainly begin with the ten experts on this page.

> You clearly have a very strong opinion about this too.

I do! And, unlike you, my opinion was formed after I received a tremendous amount of education and experience in this exact area.

> The difference between you and I is- I'm not making any false assumptions about your background in my post, or insulting your 'level of knowledge' on the topic.

Good call. That definitely wouldn't be a winning strategy for you.

> This is because I don't know you, and you are a random on the internet to me. I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt.

Fortunately, I don't need to do the same for you. You aren't shy about sharing your political beliefs or your personal background on reddit, and your comment history is public.

> Maybe I shouldn't give how hostile you are to me.

You're free to make whatever assumptions about me you'd like.

Just make sure they're correct.

> Should I assume you are scared of guns,

On the contrary, I think they're pretty rad. Unfortunately, the harm caused by their widespread availability is immense, so the ethical thing to do is to advocate for them to be tightly controlled, no matter how cool I think they are.

> don't have much experience (or at least formal training or professional with them),

Experience with firing guns? No, certainly nothing formal or professional. But experience on gun violence? Tons.

> that you're using statistics on suicide to pad your fake numbers about being 'less safe' because of a gun?

Nice! See, statements like this are a dead giveaway that you don't have any meaningful background here.

If you did, you'd already know that gun suicides aren't "padding." The availability of a firearm in the home actually increases the likelihood of suicide. Suicide by gun is gun violence, and is inextricably linked to gun control.

> You cited approximately 0 sources,

Sorry, I didn't realize that you would be convinced to change your beliefs by research proving you wrong.

But now that I know you will, I'm glad I provided you with those links to Harvard's resources on gun violence research!

(Of course, both of us know that if you do read that research, you'll be doing so with the goal of finding ways to discredit it, rather than aiming to learn from it. That's just how the radicalized brain works. Your closely-held beliefs are being challenged by actual evidence, and in order to avoid the physical discomfort associated with having to confront how intertwined your personal identity is with your unevidenced beliefs, you'll scramble to find excuses to reject any evidence you're given, no matter how credible that evidence is.)


aristidedn t1_ir8wr3t wrote

Cool. Let's also address systemic poverty, racial inequality, expand access to healthcare and mental health for the most in need, and make a concerted cultural shift away from the toxic masculinity that sees violence as a solution to problems.

There's one major party that consistently supports the above goals, and it's also the same party that wants to reduce the availability of guns.

Now: Which party's politicians do you vote for?


aristidedn t1_ir8wf7a wrote

> Yeah it's doing something- like punishing people who own them to protect their families,

A gun in the household makes a family less safe, not more safe.

> themselves,

Same goes for you. You are more likely to be injured or killed by your own firearm (whether by your own hand or someone else's) than you are to ever use it to successfully defend your life.

> hunt or for sport use.

Plenty of other countries have solved the private firearm ownership problem without banning hunting or sport shooting.

> People that are not out to hurt anyone.

Every gun owner is a responsible gun owner right up until the moment their gun injures or kills someone.

> It won't do anything about people who were going to break the law and be crazy people.

Yes, it will. We already have the evidence that it does.

> I think the solution does involve some of the things you said, like long working hours, poverty reduction, and healthcare access. These may have a real impact.

Who do you vote for? Do those people actively advocate for or support reducing working hours, reducing poverty, and expanding healthcare access?

> The problem is, when crazy people want to do something bad, they are going to do something bad.

A) That isn't true, and "crazy people" aren't the real problem, and B) If a "crazy person" does want to "do something bad", we'd all much prefer if they were forced to do it with, for example, a knife as opposed to an AR-15.

> They will run over crowds of people in a vehicle,

No, they won't. Vehicle ramming attacks are vanishingly rare, even in countries where private firearm ownership is heavily restricted.

> push people in front of trains,

No, they won't. Murder by train is vanishingly rare, even in countries where private firearm ownership is heavily restricted.

> beat them, use a different weapon.

Except they don't. Reducing the availability of firearms reduces the homicide rate.

Some small percentage of perpetrators will substitute another method, but most won't. The presence of a gun escalates situations towards homicide.

> We will never reach a perfectly safe society.

A perfectly safe society isn't the goal. A society that is at least as safe as, for example, every other developed country on the planet is the goal.

> I think the focus should be on things we can do to help people before they become that far gone.

I think the focus should be on listening to experts, rather than people like you.

You obviously have some very strong opinions on this, but very little actual background knowledge to support those opinions. Nearly every factual claim you just made is demonstrably false. I'm going to ask you to do a lot less talking, and start doing a lot more listening.