> As a Hiring Manager, do I need to spend multiple hours with 20 candidates to get a really valuable insight into who they are really like or should I just screen them with a basic exam so I only need to interview the 4 who can do it?
Why is your time more valuable than mine? Why should I invest my personal time in to your hiring process when you can't bother to spend the same amount of your on the job time, to hire someone whos going to add far more value to your company than your company is going to add to their profile?
No one is forcing anyone to apply for a job at any company. As the seller of labor, you get to choose how much to invest in any one opportunity. Just like someone selling apples can choose to open a roadside stand, try to get into a grocery store, or sell direct to consumer.
The buyer, of course, gets to choose the process by which they evaluate the labor (or the apples). If you don't like how the buyer evaluates what you are selling, find another buyer.
How often does a candidate interview, maybe 1–3 companies every 2–5 years? My manager probably has a hundred candidates every year because someone in the org is always hiring.
The problem is some brilliant product manager decided that the reader mode button should not be available on all websites and should only be available on those it seems to be articles.
Wow, I'm very surprised at this. SO is where I got my current job from and IMO it's the best place for searching for jobs in software - esp because it was easy to search for specific requirements (ex visa sponsorship or remote). Running a job board must be much harder than I thought.
To be more precise, NFT is a blockchain record confirming that you own that piece of paper :)
There was a scam scheme on eBay that if you did not read the item description correctly you would be surprised to discover that you paid $2000 for a picture of the laptop, instead of the laptop itself. NFTs are similar, except the element of surprise is missing. People still buy them, because the word "blockchain" causes their brains to shut down.
How does the original owner confirm they own the thing before it gets logged in the blockchain though? I think that's the hard part. The conversion of ownership record from real life to blockchain.
That is not relevant. NFTs do not include ownership of anything else than the record in the ledger. You don't have any intrinsic copyright or other kind of ownership to the token, or to any linked monkey jpegs, by just having the NFT.
Main falsehood from je_bailey's comment is that NFTs have nothing to do with URLs, and secondly the entire thing is based around uniqueness within blockchains, so important to highlight when you try to explain what NFTs are.
This is untrue in practice. In theory an NFT could have no url associated with it. In reality that’s how NFTs were envisioned and how they are actually implemented.
> the entire thing is based around uniqueness within blockchains, so important to highlight when you try to explain what NFTs are.
That’s right. You have to mention the blockchain so that people turn off their critical thinking. Because if you describe an NFT without techy-sounding buzzwords, people will rightly say “that sounds stupid”.
Because the blockchain is distributed? So It’s more like you are giving your piece of paper to many people around the world who keep it safe for you but can’t change its contents.
The person who owns the URL on the paper can change the contents of that URL. Legally, the paper may be a gift, but I'm now the proud owner of a piece of paper.
I can similarly own a map to the Mona Lisa. Everyone in the world may even agree and attest to that fact! I don't own the Mona Lisa as a result. The Louvre can move it, take it off display, burn down, or do any number of other things.
Hell, Jack "sold" his first Tweet for nearly $3M as an NFT. You don't own it. You can't delete it, you can't do anything with it. Jack could delete it! Twitter could delete it! Twitter could make that URL host a page that says "NFTs are dumb". You own the NFT itself.
> According to “Valuables,” the tweet itself will “continue to live on Twitter,” but the winning bidder would own the NFT, “signed and verified by the creator,” like a virtual autograph.
The "map to the Mona Lisa" is a perfect analogy. And the best part is that we can even create a new blockchain, call it something like "Besthereum" with another map to the exact same work in the real world. You don't even really own the map but a specific representation of the map, unique to the blockchain it's contained in.
On-chain knowledge is the transaction https://etherscan.io/tx/0x798c7060f2e5e0cf2a4d143874be88f404...
and their official address 0xbc4ca0eda7647a8ab7c2061c2e118a18a936f13d which is sufficient for me to tell whether it was minted by them or not. The other one clearly is affiliated with some other address in its transaction.
You know Bored Ape Yacht Club and Phunky Ape Yacht Club exist. How do you know which one owns the copyright to the images? Which one's the original artist, and which one's the fraud?
I am not sure what you are arguing for but obviously there are off-chain parts, too. The point is that once Ape Yacht Club or whoever has publicized their address I can always confirm in the future whether an Ape NFT originated from them and how it was traded after that.
Loosely similarly, if I want to communicate with someone securely they first have to communicate to me their public key but once I have it I can always verify that a message comes from them and send them messages back.
Ownership of (most) NFTs has absolutely nothing to do with ownership of the copyright, making this a red herring. It doesn't matter whether the minter of the NFT owns the JPEG. All that matters is whether someone is willing to pay to acquire the minter's digital autograph (i.e. the NFT). Of course if you are expecting a license or transfer of copyright to accompany the NFT then you'd better do your due diligence regarding whether the seller holds the necessary rights, but that applies equally well to old-fashioned signatures on paper contracts.
> A pair of non-fungible token projects are testing the boundary between plagiarism and parody. Digital marketplace OpenSea has banned the PHAYC and Phunky Ape Yacht Club (or PAYC) collections, both of which are based on the same gimmick: selling NFTs with mirrored but otherwise identical versions of high-priced Bored Ape Yacht Club avatars. Now the dueling projects are selling their apes while dodging bans from other marketplaces, becoming the latest example of how the NFT world handles copied art.
The only thing that determines the real Bored Ape Yacht Club is an off-chain belief that it's the legitimate one.
Hell, they can't even agree on which one is the real fake.
> Somewhat ironically, PAYC and PHAYC have since fought on Twitter over which one is the authentic Bored Ape Yacht Club ripoff, with PAYC’s founder referring to PHAYC as a “cash grab fraud project.” PHAYC charged people to mint its apes, and CoinDesk reports that it took in around 500 ETH (or around $1.8 million) in sales. By contrast, it says PAYC earned around 60 ETH (or roughly $225,000) from its paid sales.
That's an interesting example, but I consider it semantic only. Your example raises the question of authenticity rather than ownership. It it clear as day which wallet the NFT is connected to. The original NFT and the imitating NFT has different places in the blockchain memory. Regarding authenticity, timestamps are visible since the whole blockchain can be audited and see who got there first on all sorts of metrics
Copyright is a matter of “who created it”, not “who slapped it on a blockchain first”. If I send you my new artwork and you put it up on OpenSea before I do, you still aren’t the owner, regardless of the timestamp.
It looks very good for something whipped up in an hour. Did you consider using Redis as a data store for this? Seems like it would be quite easy to just generate a UUID as a key and set it with an expire time in redis. If you did consider Redis, any reason why you didn't end up using it?
If you want privacy and anonymity, be careful about how you're generating your UUID. Some flavors of UUID are just the MAC address, process ID, and timestamp, which makes them trivially guessable (and poorly scalable).
Instead of a UUID, just read 16 bytes from /dev/urandom (getentropy() if you've got it). Base85 or Base64 encode the bytes if you need a string.
It was over 20 years ago now, and I don't remember which library it was, but I ran across a type-1 UUID library that stored the timestamp of the latest UUID it handed out in a static (or maybe thread-local, I forget) variable, and would nanosleep until the system clock next ticked if it had already handed out a UUID with the current timestamp. So, you were limited in your UUID generation rate by the resolution of the system clock.
(I guess the fear was that it was theoretically possible for the process to crash and come back up with the same PID/TID within the same system clock tick, if the machine were really chewing through processes rapidly. It's good, as they aren't called Nearly Unique IDs, and the main use for type-1 UUIDs would be if you're paranoid about RNG collisions, but it does limit you to one ID per system clock tick, even though the timestamp in the type-1 UUID is actually 100-nanos resolution.)
A better solution would have been to query the system clock resolution, at library initialization time check the current system timestamp, and use the low bits of the type-1 UUID timestamp as a counter, being careful to never catch up to the current time. The library wouldn't have been able to hand out any UUIDs during the first system clock tick after library initialization, but after that, it could hand out up to 10 million UUIDs per second per thread. If that's not fast enough, one could also have it check for multiple network cards and use a pool of MAC addresses instead of just the primary interface's MAC address.
The UUID RFC is from 2005, but they're also documented in the ISO/IEC 11578:1996 standard.
As I mentioned, a good type-1 implementation uses a counter to simulate a higher resolution system clock to get around the system clock resolution limiting scalability. Also, I'm guessing you're generating type-4 (random) UUIDs instead of type-1 (MAC address and timestamp), right?
My point is that if you're generating UUIDs rapidly, check that you're either generating type-4, or that you're using a high-quality type-1 implementation that simulates a higher resolution clock using a counter.
The problem is Whatsapp has strong network effects unlike Facebook itself. Most people would be able to quit Facebook and it wouldn't make much of a difference to their lives, whereas cutting off Whatsapp would mean a daily inconvenience when you want to talk to the people closest to you.
> would mean a daily inconvenience when you want to talk to the people closest to you
I did exactly that and it wasn't hard at all. I still have a phone number which they can call or text. I let them know the alternatives I was reachable on, and they installed them. My family group chat is now on Telegram, my wife who still uses whatsapp says the WA family chat is basically dead.
Even when I was in contact with a recruiter for the job I'm currently in it wasn't that hard. She said I'll 'App you' which means to send a message via WA. I quickly said something like ah sorry I'm not on WA but you can Telegram or just text me instead. And you know what she said? Ok. And then we texted.
If it's really that big of an inconvenience for those closest to you, you have to wonder how close they really are.
Good for you, and your family, but that's simply not possible in lots of situations. My father and I tried to convert our family chat to Signal. Didn't work. I have no way to convince my coworkers to switch away from Whatsapp: they simply don't see privacy issues in the same light as I do.
It's unfortunate, but at least for the time being it's simply not happening.
> My father and I tried to convert our family chat to Signal. Didn't work.
Oh damn, did they just continue the whatsapp chat without you two in it?
> convince my coworkers to switch away from Whatsapp
You don't have to convince them to switch away from WA. You personally just need to switch away from WA. The reason it worked in my case is because I just simply stated I wasn't going to use it anymore and that they could reach me in different ways. The value is in the network effect, at the start they used Telegram just for me. But since they already had Telegram open for the group chat, they might as well use it for PM's to each other.
> at least for the time being it's simply not happening
There's really nothing that will change though. WA will keep working, WA will keep becoming more shit, and 99% of people will still not care as long as it works. The only difference is the people that you can reach through the medium.
> If it's really that big of an inconvenience for those closest to you, you have to wonder how close they really are.
You are in an incredibly fortunate position if you only ever have to communicate with people or groups of people who find you so significant they will change things to ensure they can reach you.
I am involved in a couple of volunteer groups with about 50 members. Everything is planned and discussed in WhatsApp groups. I am a junior member with no special value to the group and if I declined to participate via WA I would just be ignored. I.E. If I stopped using WhatsApp I would no longer have any hobbies. Great result.
Likewise where I live there is a massive housing shortage, 100 applicants for a flat is not unusual. If the agent wanted to use WhatsApp and I refused, he would just ignore me.
With good reason. The free market is not effectively regulated against collusion in India. On the 'free' market, the middle men band together, fix prices, and the farmer ends up getting the short end of the stick. The mandis were originally established to prevent the farmers getting completely squeezed by scrupulous middle men.
They stoke communal sentiments, pit Hindus vs Muslims, make it seem like the minorities are out to destroy the Hindus, and a vast majority of the population just laps it up.
They have a giant misinformation network, which has recruited everybody from bots to popular actors to popular sportspeople and they spread out misinformation in a highly organized manner. Very effective at spreading FUD which translates into votes come election time.
Even now, on Twitter and Reddit you'll find thousands of posts about how the protesting farmers are khalistani terrorists.
Goebbels would be proud of what the BJP have accomplished.
Doesn't help that the opposite party, Indian National Congress, is still reliant on old outdated minority appeasement tactics.
Both parties are guilty of spreading misinformation, but now-ruling party encashed the majority votebank first, and almost controls the popular narrative. Moreover INC doesn't have promising leadership, they are mostly exploited by Nehru-Gandhi family.
In most demographics, majority of people are conservative and it's just matter of time someone exploits it.
Thanks for your advice! I'd also like to know if you would consider a non-conventional resume (like a specialized resume website), rather than a conventional word/pdf document, as a positive or a negative?
Most places you’ll have to submit a PDF (or sometimes Word doc), so start with that. Having your resume also hosted on LinkedIn or elsewhere won’t hurt you, but it doesn’t add much value.
Yes I am currently based in India, and I know visas can be an issue, but I am specifically talking about openings that are advertised as 'Visa Sponsored'.
Why is your time more valuable than mine? Why should I invest my personal time in to your hiring process when you can't bother to spend the same amount of your on the job time, to hire someone whos going to add far more value to your company than your company is going to add to their profile?