Lots of this in hinged on the fact that real estate business will inevitably collapse. Dont expect them to take this hit lightly and "pivot" or "adjust". The whole business is based on "location location location" - which will (already has) become more and more irrelevant.
You replied within an hour and now Im seeing it in 20 hours.
We exchange short texts, we both dont have a context, we dont know what each of us feels at that moment and we have absolutely no feedback about each other's mental states.
THIS isnt working! The conversational part of the social media is out of sync with reality and timespan. Evolution never had to optimize for this b/c there was never a need for it.
We struggle to understand, we just throw words at each other in passing and fill in the dots in our own minds - which is terrible b/c those dots are too far apart.
Signal is a needle in a haystack. Its not worth trying to keep fixing and reshaping the haystack so we dont keep loosing the needle. Lets just admit this tool isnt working and move on to better alternatives.
Edit: Clarifications (Need for post-editing also supports my point btw. )
More fake news and generated AI content there is more people would stop trusting social media. It will saturate to that tipping point that humanity will need to find more genuine ways to communicate. So I say bring it on.
All these mechanisms are not 100%. They are averaged around "an average" person as all these things are. I would argue that anybody that realizes the true intention poses enough intuition to stay away from it.
Its a tool. Use parts of it you need and dont pay attention to the rest. Its not hard.
If it is hard - be thankful it revealed something about you that you want to work on overcoming.
Labeling work remote or non-remote (on-site?) becomes increasingly irrelevant. Need for physical presence in a given geographical location is mitigated by good planing and quality of tools allowing to share information effectively.
Why dont we stop calling things remote or not, but focus more on improving the tool sets needed to better plan and share thing between humans.
All of these tools are needed wether the team is physically on the same geo location or spread out. What changed now is that its much harder to justify not having them anymore.
I wonder if this is in response to Eric Weinstein's Geometric Unity presentation he did on April 1st.
Yesterday, on Lex Fridman's podcast, he mentioned how since he revealed his theory there wasnt any feedback from scientific community. BTW, highly recommend watching Eric's Portal.
Well if you believe the person you never met, why do an interview at all then ? Basic trust - get on board ! Im sorry but your argument doesnt make sense. Nobody in their right mind expects to be trusted right out of the gate. They come to the interviews to build that trust. To prove they are what the paper says about them.
>Why not just use probationary periods, but not emphasize the reason to the applicants?
Thats effectively what i do, but I want to be upfront about it more so than its conventionally accepted. And the main reason is b/c i chose not to do long interviews, which might convey that "ah, seems like an easy place to slack, nobody gives a shit here"
UPDATE:
Seems like I somehow managed to confuse the readers.
I choose to trust the candidate. Even more so than anybody with traditional approach with technical interviews and endless back and forth. I hire, pay salary after 1 hour of chatting. Only Im direct about my intentions. I specify what is expected of the candidate when hired and Its up to them to live up to what they commit to during the chat.
I thought phrase in my post "I choose to believe you" indicates basic trust. I dont see how you got confused and misread my intentions to claim quite the opposite.
I choose to trust, yes ! Thats the whole point. I dont trust the interview process itself to be valuable, b/c it does not give you neither the right context or enough time to learn about the person.
how about those health care professionals not logging out of their sessions, writing up their passwords on the stickit notes and just generally leaving their computers unlocked for anybody to just browse through. Its always easy to blame the "maker" and say Im an idiot, make this idiot proof. Do you really want people to treat you, being in a mindset of an idiot ?
If there is one field in all of universe that you cant not blame the tools for your own idiocracy is the health care !
I want you, the doctor, bend backwards to be at the top of your game ALWAYS, not just when you are doing a brain surgery. I want you to be the ONE that i can have 100% trust that you have my interests in mind instead of playing blame games.
One can always fork python to keep it "general" if it ever comes to that. In fact I would argue both ML and non-ML domains would benefit from that fork. The reason python is used in ML is not because its intrinsically good for it, but because it happened to have a good set of libraries and community at the right time and place.
Having specialized subset of python fine-tuned/"compiled" for ML would be a good path for it as a product to evolve towards. I would not mind having all kinds of ML related, algebraic operations as part of the language so the code reads more naturally. And not only that, all frameworks have to support that language and thus become much more interchangeable. Just like you can have CPython and pypy and others that converge into the same language, imagine the same thing with TensorFlow, PyTorch and alike converging to a singe language that support builtin ML-operations.