Thoughts on this? Personally I think it would scare the HR roasties.
If HR started to use more in-person interaction during the interview process, their heads would spin because social interaction has become a dying art.
It's not a big deal. I handle resumes and interviews every 2-3 months and you can very obviously tell someone used AI.
It's a chess match of sorts: both HR and job seekers are using AI to make the process easier. Unfortunately, the technology can be misused by either side, but Pandora's box has been open and it's never closing. Job seekers want any advantage they can to advance past the screening process and HR needs to weed out the people who are bad fits and using AI to embellish their resumes. Any HR person who knows how to do their job is probably operating as
@'Ole Dente is.
Every person you hire into a real professional job, every single one, will require 6 months to start contributing as they learn your company's processes and systems. In that amount of time, they'll also be learning new skills as well. That one highly specific thing they don't know or were a little rusty on? Don't worry, in 6 months, that will be online, too.
From my own experience with my latest job, this is true. It takes six months to get acclimated and have the boss realize what should have been communicated sooner but wasn't, etc. This was around the time I discovered a document regarding an office procedure was grossly out of date and causing issues, so I collaborated with a co-worker to get and keep it correct so that any new hire has correct information as soon they come aboard.
what critical services do NPR and PBS provide that would require a replacement to fill the void? plenty of other liberal propaganda outlets exist to scam old people out of money
Some people I've talked to feel government-sponsored TV and radio should not be endorsing any single political viewpoint akin to a separation of church or state and that a variety of opinions need to be presented if they want to broadcast that kind of content.
As previously stated, public broadcasting still has a role in informational and educational broadcasting. However there has to be some tough decisions made regarding how to do this because traditional media is no longer the #1 source for people in a time where live streams, podcasts, etc. all compete to fill in that need. It needs to adapt and be revamped in order to remain viable - even if it means focusing on quality over quantity.
Nobody would mind PBS/NPR etc if they just had some cooking shows and shit. The problem is that it’s a full blown Dem propaganda organization.
Locally, PBS aired cooking shows on one of its subchannels during the COVID lockdown every weekend. Unfortunately, those look to have been put on the back burner and air less frequently, and all of them appear to have the same format to the point it feels like PBS execs randomly draw a cook's name out of a container and let them run the cooking show of the moment because the only things differing between episodes are the host and the food.
Empirically, I know someone who watches what little informational/educational shows airs but doesn't grasp those shows are now the exception and not the normal PBS offerings as they once were and can't understand why it needs to be defunded.
But could talk about this Obama coup some, no? Honestly it seems a clear-cut case of abuse of power and I would think treasonous.
I think the fact that the media is very, very intentionally ignoring it is telling.
With so little being revealed, having an informed opinion is difficult. Nevertheless, the media ignoring this is for sure telling because this has the potential to blow up into something that will look bad for the Dems - akin to how the IRS during Obama's era was used to unduly hassle conservative-leaning entities.
What the media sees as treasonous versus what truly is has been a distinct dichotomy for quite some time. It won't surprise me if the media dismisses this as a good thing - just like they did with the violence against law enforcement and their buildings back in 2020 - whereas the mere storming of the White House on January 6 is portrayed as the one of the worst things that could ever possible happen in American history.
One can only wonder if anything of actual legal consequence will happen or not.
As much as I'd love to be proven wrong, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for consequences.
Serious question: How do Americans who attend mega churches and televangelist events view the 'pastors' that they follow? Do they not see the grift or is there something that I have yet to discover that makes the mega churches defensible in the eyes of their followers?
I look at the differences between a figure like Billy Graham and one like Kenneth Copeland and I wonder what changed in the last 50 years...
From what I've heard of megachurches and their pastors, the experience is less about religion and more about having some sort of community/social activity on a Sunday. A number of pastors don't even mention God, Jesus, or anything spiritual and simply give sermons that are motivational pep talks intended to make attendees feel empowered to go out and do something good in their lives. Other mega churches have in-building restaurants or other amenities for people to eat or do whatever instead of attend the actual service as if the religious aspect matters less than going out somewhere. I've also heard megachurches do less to help the poor than other/smaller mainstream churches.
It's as if its all a giant production or show to give people what they think they want without actually giving them what they want or need in a spiritual sense.
Every place has its hang-ups.
Years ago, a pastor in his discussion said that not everyone believes 100% of the church's teachings and we have to be open with ourselves about the hang-ups that come with that. People have various needs, so one size definitely doesn't fit all. Good pastors know this and try to act accordingly. Others don't care and it eventually shows in the congregation stagnating or moving to another place that better suits their needs.
Edits for spelling and clarity.
