ChatGPT

ChatGPT OpenAI

Heartland

Heartland is one of the most hypocritical shows. The show is based on a ranch with the center story revolving around a self-centered and cheating horse whisperer. On one hand the show displays how disturbed horses are treated while on the other end we are shown animal cruelty at the hands of cowboy and cowgirls in rodeo for which the horse whisperer is only more than willing to take part in ranging from broncos, roping calves, wrestling steers, bull riding, and other activities. We even are shown some characters that are vegans and yet willing to take part in the rodeo. It is even questionable how well the horse whisperer can communicate with horses. This is a family show that showcases the whole idea of being selectively heartless with double standards. It also has the re-runs of the same dramatic storylines of misunderstandings between characters. But, this might just be an indication of poor scriptwriting. Eventhough, life of a cowboy or cowgirl cannot be easy, one cannot but shrug in dismay at the mistreatment of animals in such communities. However, at one point it does provide an angle towards family life. But, loses its appeal by an anti-climax of killing off a crucial character. With such a long running show, it is understandable how actors would want to leave to move on to other opportunities and perhaps even encounter creative differences as their acting experiences evolve through time. This is a show that perhaps started with some good intentions and then meandered into the gravy train of greed as popularity grew through the seasons. However, one has to ask when is the right time to end the show that has been going on for so long and has lost the plot? When is the right time to end the life of a character? Or, is it a case of drawing the line as life moves on and letting the characters live on while the show reaches its end. This is a typical example of a show that has gone past its sell-by date.

Second-Hand Marketplaces

Often second-hand marketplaces sell goods that should never be made available for re-sell. In fact, most consumer items depreciate in value considerably faster. Only items whose re-sell value appreciates as time goes on should be considered. Second-Hand consumer items that are associated with cooking tend to have a health risk associated to them. Again, clothing items are similarly of health risk. Invariably, the intention of use often dictates such second-hand purchases and their long-term value.

Consumer items that should never be purchased second-hand. These items tend to lose value after each new release or after use:

• books
• electronics
• mobile phones
• clothes
• tableware
• kitchenware
• cooking utensils 
• shoes
• furniture
• toys

Consumer items that could be considered for purchase second-hand:

• Property (flat, house, office space, shop, etc - only after they have been thoroughly checked)
• Automobiles (only after they have been thoroughly checked and only if they are good as new, for some brands they can be bought directly from the manufacturer)
• Antiques (only after a valuation has been made)
• Old books (one of a kind books only after a valuation has been made)
• Paintings (only after it has been checked for authenticity)
• Autographed memorabilia (only after a valuation has been made)
• Watches and Clocks (only after a valuation has been made)
• Collection items (stamps, etc - only after a valuation has been made)
• Clothings (reuse materials to create new designer wear)
• Furniture (reuse materials to create new furniture)
• Shoes (reuse materials to create new shoes)
• Phones (reuse materials to create new phones)
• Electronics (reuse materials to create new electronic items)
• Books (reuse materials to create new books)

Psychopathic AI

Norman 

Norman AI

Debatabase

Debatabase

Why Coding Tests Are Bad

Not all roles at companies require coding tests, or even tests for that matter - so its a form of discrimination. Did the ceo of the company go through a test before they were hired to manage the company? Secondly, most interviews start with introductions where candidates share their background. So, after that if you go into a coding test, what you are doing is essentially discrediting a candidate's cv/resume, skills, experience, and education background. Not a good start at building a relationship from distrust. It also showcases how the company might treat the candidate, if they were to transition into an employee. Coding interviews can also be quite opinionated, biased, frustrating, flawed, outdated, bookish, pedantic, use buggy third-party tools, unclear instructions, and unrelated to the job. Plus, you can't really correct the interviewer during the process with best practices and the way they do things. Another aspect is it is chargeable time, the interviewer could get a free lunch without having to pay and hire you. By the time you set them through all those test stages they could have an offer with someone else. Likely, the candidate has already gone through tests at uni and most of their life, do you really want to bore them with more tests to do.

• They eat a significant part of an interview process
• They take time to do
• Often the instructions are not clear and there is no one to ask for help
• There is a chance that the organization could get a free lunch without the need to pay and hire the candidate
• There is a chance that the organization could ghost on the candidate straight after
• Doesn't accurately compare candidates
• Other roles do not require such tests
• Candidates can lose interest
• Then there is the aspect of human bias
• Test markers could be too pedantic e.g. marking down for spelling a variable either in American or British english
• Often the test is unrelated to the job e.g. asking someone to do a spring test when the job description does not even require that experience
• The test provides incorrect instructions
• The tests can be biased and discriminatory
• Often tests don't reflect the real-world
• Often tests are too bookish and an indication of how junior the role is
• People go through university and school taking tests, do you really have to then give them more tests during interview
• It is a perfect way to put off a candidate
• It can be seen as a form of insult to the candidate
• If you require tests then why do you need them to have a bachelor's, master's, or a phd
• Giving someone a test to do is in a way discrediting all the skills, education, and experience they have on the CV/Resume. Not a good way of building a relationship from distrust.
• It can be seen as a form of discrimination, especially as not all roles require tests, or even the same types of tests
• Coding interviewers can be quite opinionated and not necessarily correct in their best practices
• Correcting a coding interviewer during an interview can be tricky
• It can be frustrating for candidates as the coding interviewer has their own way of doing things
• It showcases how the potential employer will distrust and treat the candidate as they transition into an employee
• Coding tests can be outdated or use third-party tools that are buggy
• And, when the third-party testing tool gives you the message "system is down for maintenance" right in middle of a session

Programs in Cognitive Science

Cognitive Science Society

Survey of Pre-Trained Transformer Models

Survey of Pre-Trained Transformer Models