I've responded to incidents before and the procedure was to address the immediate problem, then prevent it from happening again. When your software sends out phishing mail, the immediate problem is that people will click the link and potentially be harmed by what is behind it. So you first send out something telling people to not click the link. Then you can delete accounts etc. At least that's how I would do it.
Thanks for the notice! Did you also notify affected users immediately? (I wasn't affected; didn't receive a scam message.) That seems like the first thing to do, lest links be clicked. Telling people now to not click on the link is a bit late.
I find it a bit disconcerting that you write about the costs to the org, but not the costs to the applicants. Ie. applicant puts a lot of work into applying for a role and then you decide that that one is the one you won't fill. It may very well be that the trade is still worth it and that the negative effect on candidates can be mitigated. But lacking even a single sentence in this direction seems callous. (I'm writing this as someone who spends more time on the side of hiring people than on the side of applying for jobs.)
To be specific: The above is a linear, high-level retelling of the history of smallpox, some of it misleading (eg. about the scab being ‘consumed’, which sounds as if people had to eat it). The creative part is dressing it in a language of metaphor and pathos, which many apparently like, but I was wondering if it was written by AI until I saw the publication date. A composition of first-person accounts and tight, plain-language description of the eradication efforts would have been more powerful. If you disagree, read some good historians.
What does the research say about the fraction of people who decided on ethical grounds to have/not to have children and then were happy with their choice on emotional grounds vs. regretted their choice?
It might be better to have them for impact and find out that it's great to have them independent of impact than to not have them because one didn't feel like having them. (Similar to my experience. I think babies are gross rather than cute. Only my own baby is cute.)
I know there is more nuance in your post, but if I take your title at face value, I would say: When I'm evaluating candidates and I catch you not being honest (ie. lying or distorting the truth), I'm going to reject your application. If I catch you lying outright, I'm never going to consider you again as a candidate. If I find out after you were hired that you lied during the application process, I would probably do my best to get you fired. (I mean the ‘you’ in a general sense. I'm not expecting you, JDLC, would lie.)
If you give honest, but unspecific answers, and it's about an important skill, I'm going to ask you follow-up questions to figure out what's going on.
I've responded to incidents before and the procedure was to address the immediate problem, then prevent it from happening again. When your software sends out phishing mail, the immediate problem is that people will click the link and potentially be harmed by what is behind it. So you first send out something telling people to not click the link. Then you can delete accounts etc. At least that's how I would do it.
Thanks for the notice! Did you also notify affected users immediately? (I wasn't affected; didn't receive a scam message.) That seems like the first thing to do, lest links be clicked. Telling people now to not click on the link is a bit late.
Thanks for explaining! My original concern was that these considerations were not included in the original post.
I find it a bit disconcerting that you write about the costs to the org, but not the costs to the applicants. Ie. applicant puts a lot of work into applying for a role and then you decide that that one is the one you won't fill. It may very well be that the trade is still worth it and that the negative effect on candidates can be mitigated. But lacking even a single sentence in this direction seems callous. (I'm writing this as someone who spends more time on the side of hiring people than on the side of applying for jobs.)
To be specific: The above is a linear, high-level retelling of the history of smallpox, some of it misleading (eg. about the scab being ‘consumed’, which sounds as if people had to eat it). The creative part is dressing it in a language of metaphor and pathos, which many apparently like, but I was wondering if it was written by AI until I saw the publication date. A composition of first-person accounts and tight, plain-language description of the eradication efforts would have been more powerful. If you disagree, read some good historians.
Then EA creative writing must be in a dire state.
Search for ‘Ashgro’ in https://survivalandflourishing.fund/2025/recommendations to find examples of projects we're sponsoring.
What does the research say about the fraction of people who decided on ethical grounds to have/not to have children and then were happy with their choice on emotional grounds vs. regretted their choice?
It might be better to have them for impact and find out that it's great to have them independent of impact than to not have them because one didn't feel like having them. (Similar to my experience. I think babies are gross rather than cute. Only my own baby is cute.)
I agree with David's response.
I know there is more nuance in your post, but if I take your title at face value, I would say: When I'm evaluating candidates and I catch you not being honest (ie. lying or distorting the truth), I'm going to reject your application. If I catch you lying outright, I'm never going to consider you again as a candidate. If I find out after you were hired that you lied during the application process, I would probably do my best to get you fired. (I mean the ‘you’ in a general sense. I'm not expecting you, JDLC, would lie.)
If you give honest, but unspecific answers, and it's about an important skill, I'm going to ask you follow-up questions to figure out what's going on.