Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 323 posts

Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

#311

Post by p0sixlang »

BlueTemplar wrote: post #306
0xff00ffee wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Especially if they use neural networks" LOL.

"LOL" as in "heh, like they have the know-how to use them properly !" or as in "duh, of course they do!" ?

I think that was a LOL as in "your comment lacks understanding of the capabilities of neural networks in it's suggestion a neural network could identify someone in the pool of... everyone (lets even say in a certain area), based on writing style."

You'd need countless IDed writing samples to even give yourself a 50% chance of making a network able to with 50% accuracy match an unIDed writing sample to an IDed one.

Facial recognition is easier (yet still very hard) to implement because there're characteristics about people's faces that're hard to modify unless you're really trying.

Compared to writing style which could differ based on too many factors.

Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

#312

Post by komali2 »

wayneftw wrote: post #298
maest wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would people make fun of them behind their back?

Because this is generally a topic of ridicule? You don't have to look very far - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbT2sQ1GmgY

So... You're on the side of people that want to be allowed to make fun of people that care deeply about being acknowledged as a chosen identity? You find this position defensible somehow?

Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

#313

Post by BlueTemplar »

p0sixlang wrote: post #311
BlueTemplar wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"LOL" as in "heh, like they have the know-how to use them properly !" or as in "duh, of course they do!" ?

I think that was a LOL as in "your comment lacks understanding of the capabilities of neural networks in it's suggestion a neural network could identify someone in the pool of... everyone (lets even say in a certain area), based on writing style." You'd need countless IDed writing samples to even give yourself a 50% chance of making a network able to with 50% accuracy match an unIDed writing sample to an IDed one. Fa…

> In one experiment, researchers were able to identify 80% of users with a 5,000-word writing sample.

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/01/identifying_p...

?

Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

#314

Post by p0sixlang »

BlueTemplar wrote: post #313
p0sixlang wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that was a LOL as in "your comment lacks understanding of the capabilities of neural networks in it's suggestion a neural network could identify someone in the pool of... everyone (lets even say in a certain area), based on writing style." You'd need countless IDed writing samples to even give yourself a 50% chance of making a network able to with 50% accuracy match an unIDed writing sample to an IDed one. Fa…

> In one experiment, researchers were able to identify 80% of users with a 5,000-word writing sample. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/01/identifying_p... ?

I'll just steal one of the comments from the article. "It isn't new, and it's just as overstated as previous studies. The 80% accurate identification rate applies only within the 5,000 subjects. The identification rate will plummet when the pool of writers expands to everyone who can write in English" Like I said, if you can narrow the pool to a small amount of people, than you probably could accomplish this (but even then, there's always the chance two people have similar writing styles.)

Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

#315

Post by p0sixlang »

t0astbread wrote: post #165

If a company asks me to do a background check during application I will just instantly abort. Like ok, if they don't trust me that I'm not an asshole how can I trust them that they treat me right?

What about post-offer?

Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

#316

Post by Jupe »

sombremesa wrote: post #218
Jupe wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, fair enough, but try and extend the pattern. What if the technical candidates don't have a Facebook account, a twitter account, a github account, or any other active online presence? Do you think such resume's will jump to the top of the decision pile? I highly doubt it.

As someone who doesn't have Facebook, barely uses Twitter (zero tweets, I just use tweetdeck to follow some people), doesn't share his GitHub account with employers (just don't really care to) - my resume still jumps to the top of the pile based solely on the big names I've worked for in the past. So - yes. Sure, you're going to add more qualifiers now, but I'm giving a counterpoint to your original claim.

I could easily add more qualifiers, but won't. I see the pattern and support my argument: The original poster is but one example. This company (fama.io) is in the business of performing exactly these types of social media background checks. (Reference: https://craft.co/fama/competitors)

As the masses (and I mean MASSES) of people buy into the social media explosion going on all over the planet, these "low-profile" individuals will A) become rarer, and B) start to look suspicious. Whether the sub-population of computer engineers see it for "what it is" or not; the general population apparently doesn't.

Example: I have a friend who, begrudgingly, created a Facebook account and used it rarely. Several months in, he started getting "friend" requests from (presumably) middle-eastern men, often shown with photos of AK-47s. If this is not a clear demonstration of a IS NULL business rule to figure out who might be anti-social, I don't know what it.

I stand by my prediction as well: Over time, a lack of an online presence (in a world where online presence is virtually required to live modern daily life) will be deemed "anti-social".

The lure (both ease and historical/digital facts) provided by scanning social media history will only grow in popularity.

Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

#317

Post by wayneftw »

komali2 wrote: post #312
wayneftw wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because this is generally a topic of ridicule? You don't have to look very far - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbT2sQ1GmgY

So... You're on the side of people that want to be allowed to make fun of people that care deeply about being acknowledged as a chosen identity? You find this position defensible somehow?

Oh absolutely. The word police can fucking suck my big one hard. I'll call you "he" or "she" and you can pick one. I'm not changing how I reference you based on your mood and I'm not using any other recently manufactured pronouns ever.

The vast majority of Americans are on my side here. Look around at comments on articles and videos about fake pronouns. Even the majority of gays are against it. It's absolutely 100% a fucking laughing stock of a subject. If you can't see that, then you're blind.

Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

#318

Post by wayneftw »

maest wrote: post #302
wayneftw wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because this is generally a topic of ridicule? You don't have to look very far - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbT2sQ1GmgY

I wouldn't use the word "generally" here. Pretty much none of the people I work with would consider this ridicule-worthy. People are aware it's not usual to have different pronouns so the reason they'd make this request must be important to them. Probably more important than it is for you to use regular pronouns. So if it's important, why ridicule them? (Of course, if you have evidence that they're doing it on a whim…

Can you find an article or video about these recently manufactured pronouns that has a majority of comments that are supportive? Because I certainly can't. As I said to the other responder - even the gays are against it AFAICT since articles I've found on places like "pink news" have shown gay people mocking them as well.

I find that what people say to your face at work is vastly different from what they'll say outside of work or when they really feel comfortable...anonymously online.

Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

#319

Post by BlueTemplar »

p0sixlang wrote: post #314
BlueTemplar wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In one experiment, researchers were able to identify 80% of users with a 5,000-word writing sample. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/01/identifying_p... ?

I'll just steal one of the comments from the article. "It isn't new, and it's just as overstated as previous studies. The 80% accurate identification rate applies only within the 5,000 subjects. The identification rate will plummet when the pool of writers expands to everyone who can write in English" Like I said, if you can narrow the pool to a small amount of people, than you probably could accomplish this (but eve…

And if you had read further, you would have seen him corrected : it's 5k words, not 5k subjects. (And, also, I do raise this potential caveat in my mention of "needles"...)

Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

#320

Post by maest »

wayneftw wrote: post #318
maest wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't use the word "generally" here. Pretty much none of the people I work with would consider this ridicule-worthy. People are aware it's not usual to have different pronouns so the reason they'd make this request must be important to them. Probably more important than it is for you to use regular pronouns. So if it's important, why ridicule them? (Of course, if you have evidence that they're doing it on a whim…

Can you find an article or video about these recently manufactured pronouns that has a majority of comments that are supportive? Because I certainly can't. As I said to the other responder - even the gays are against it AFAICT since articles I've found on places like "pink news" have shown gay people mocking them as well. I find that what people say to your face at work is vastly different from what they'll say outsi…

> an article or video about these recently manufactured pronouns that has a majority of comments that are supportive

I think that's the wrong measure for this.

Also, there's a chance we're talking past each other - in a separate reply you mentioned changing the pronoun based on the other person's mood. I think that's an extreme case, particularly because it's impractical (which is the source of a lot of these jokes).

Separately, imagine one of your friends comes to you and says 'wayneftw, I have done some serious thinking and I disagree with how society views my gender. I know it's an uncommon request, but this is important to me: I would like you to use these pronouns when referring to me."

Would you comply? Or would you mock them?

Post reply on HN