> US Navy began testing Bitmanagement’s 3D virtual reality application ‘BS Contact Geo’. The Navy subsequently installed the software across its network, assuming that it had permission to do so.
This turned out to be a crucial misunderstanding. Bitmanagement said it never authorized this type of use and when it discovered that the Navy had installed the software on hundreds of thousands of computers, the company took legal action.
This part of the article made me think it was an error on Navy part during the testing phase. The posted article does link to a 2016 article alleging that the Navy disabled tracking of the software deployment as well.
>Navy allegedly disabled the software that is supposed to track on how many computers the software is being used. This violation of the terms of service prevents the software vendor from stopping the unauthorized copying.
It's a time trade off. Candidates can also get interview fatigue so skipping the initial interview save around 45-60min per company interviewing at.
Candidates that have obvious signals (example, worked at a fang) won't really need this service. But there are likely plenty of good candidates that get rejected at the resume review stage because their experience doesn't look that they can do the job even if the candidate is perfectly able.
I think this is a smart way to scale up an applicant pool with minimal resources. My opinion is based on being in recruiting and doing analytics from startups to big tech.
It might be worse than former TripleByte interviews in figuring out signals, but it is much less people and cost intensive to scale. I think it's a smart trade off for a start up.
Most first interviews cover the same set of questions. For engineers, it's usually can this person actually code / leet code knowledge.
On-site interviews have a lot of variables, ranging from types of questions, interviewers, and hiring committee for an offer to be extended. I can see why being rejected at 2nd/on-site stage doesn't matter much.
Had the same reaction when I read that line. It's the same as saying scoring in the top 1% percentile is within your control. And how are kids even suppose to know about these schools at a young age? I would assume it's the parents that needs to be knowledgeable and push their children to those admission exams.
The author certainly seems to have a tormented school career. It's to be reminded that when in that situation, survival and escapism often takes priority than figuring out the best high school to go to.
I did some "gifted student" programs in middle school and high school, although not the specific one discussed in the article. This was my experience:
> And how are kids even suppose to know about these schools at a young age? I would assume it's the parents that needs to be knowledgeable and push their children to those admission exams.
Middle schools want to feed as many of their students to these programs as possible. When Johns Hopkins held an SAT for eighth graders, the teachers distributed flyers home and I heard about it on the morning announcements every day for two weeks. (If Virginia's middle schools aren't making students aware of their high school opportunities, that is very easy to fix.)
> It's the same as saying scoring in the top 1% percentile is within your control.
A topic of active debate within educational circles is whether we should tell students that intelligence is innate or that hard work/"grit" is the most important thing. There's some evidence that the "grit" story leads to better outcomes, so that's what educational establishments prefer to tell students.
It's likely, then, that "you can score in the top percentile with enough hard work and determination" is the official position of the school district. And who knows, it might even be true!
At my middle school, you could enroll in an afterschool prep class for TJHSST, run by the school. (And a large fraction of the GT students did!)
If you live in Fairfax County [where the school is located], it would be almost impossible to not have heard about TJHSST if you were in middle school.
I think the exam for TJ was relatively well known; but one thing I'd be interested in seeing is how much of kids attending TJ also attended a GT middle school, and how many also attended a GT elementary school. I have no numbers, but having gone through these systems myself, it seems like a lot to maybe even most. It become like a conveyer belt, and parents who understand the long term ramifications of these programs try to get their children on as early as possible.
Here is an interesting page I found on the history of the GT program for Fairfax Country Public Schools at elementary and middle school level:
http://www.fcag.org/gtfcps.html
These are the names of some of the previous tests:
- Gifted Behaviors Rating Scale form
- Naglieri Non-Verbal Abilities Test
- OLSAT
Obviously we can't go back in time, but it would be interesting to know what kids at the testing eligible age thoughts/knowledge/understanding where around these tests.
That would be great, but reality is that product development at many places depends on a few people to be aware of accessibility in the design process.
And there are situations outside of product usability it will be helpful to know what is commonly seen. For example, when someone asks you to pick up X item at a store that is a color that you have a hard time identifying.
I did the endurance race track with a car that I knew could win, set it on auto with the computer to do the 100-200 laps. These days I think you can speed up the auto play by 5-10x.
The type of relationship is different, but the example still holds. Having a profile at all can and likely will be viewed as an indicator of intention to leave the current relationship for a new relationship. This was how it was viewed having a resume profile on sites like Monster and CareerBuilder before LinkedIn made it the norm to have a public resume.
Time frame is also very important. Example, a user has been with the company for over a decade, but the product has only been around for a few years. Or if one of the "achievements" was a test that was added recently.
But what if you didn't have one yesterday, but you do have one today? What if you have only worked for one employer since TripleByte was founded (2015)? What if the only place you've worked is a startup of which you're a cofounder?
If you can't think of a way in which a privacy leak can have consequences, that doesn't mean there aren't any.
In the sense of a logical implication which follows with full logical necessity: it doesn't.
In the sense of a likely reason for someone to draw an inference: Most people do not specifically seek out excuses to take tests, and do so only because they want something that the test provides them with, such as access to a job-hunting platform. Most people who want access to a job-hunting platform want it because they are job-hunting or plan to be soon.
It's a known interviewing service. The implication by many would be that you took the test because you were interested in interviewing.
Is there another big use case that I'm missing from their product? Interested in hearing your interpretation of a person that has a profile on an interviewing service. My assumption would be the main objective of a user signing up for a service would be using the main product the service provides.
After reading your various comments, I have to ask if you have any relationship with Triplebyte and/or its founders beyond merely using the service. And yes, I would greatly appreciate an answer to this.
I do not, other than having interviewed with them. For the record, I would not care to repeat the experience, either. I found the process unnecessarily stressful and not worth the time investment.
Nonetheless, I don’t find very much wrong with what they do, in general, or what they’ve done here. Do you think because I have a dissenting opinion, I must necessarily be some kind of shill. Come out and say it, if so.
I didn’t know one way or the other, which is why I asked. Perhaps the unspoken bias I’m putting on display is the assumption that no independent observer could possibly think their actions were ethical.
If I remember correctly, that was for low level weed dealers, not scamming financial systems. A successful identify theft of a middle or upper income family will reap a payout much greater than a fast food worker.
This turned out to be a crucial misunderstanding. Bitmanagement said it never authorized this type of use and when it discovered that the Navy had installed the software on hundreds of thousands of computers, the company took legal action.
This part of the article made me think it was an error on Navy part during the testing phase. The posted article does link to a 2016 article alleging that the Navy disabled tracking of the software deployment as well.
>Navy allegedly disabled the software that is supposed to track on how many computers the software is being used. This violation of the terms of service prevents the software vendor from stopping the unauthorized copying.
https://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-sued-for-software-pi...