l_t

Interesting proposal. I definitely think that implementing metacognitive facilities, as well as internal representations of the perceived emotional states of the actors around the AI, seem like good steps in the right direction. Predicate logic will never work, though.

One other aspect I found a bit odd:

> As an agent designer, it gives one confidence in choosing “insight meditation” as a philosophy of mind because the mental processes have been documented to create compassion in even the most hardened criminals (Ariel and Menahemi, 1997).

This strikes me as a bit of an absurd criteria for choosing what is, essentially, a software algorithm. This system is so fundamentally different from a human being, that I don't think any such parallels are warranted.

Well, I think there is a semantic difference between saying that they "don't appear to want it very badly" and stating that they "should appear to want it very badly". If someone seems diffident, you might say they don't want the job very badly, right? But you wouldn't say that about someone who seemed excited about it. It's just an idiom. You have to show some interest, but you don't have to be desperate.

About the "dying for the job" comment, though, I agree that is going too far. Personally, I think you should project a positive attitude about both your previous job, and about the possibility of working at the new place. But never act in a way that implies you aren't on equal footing with the interviewer. It should be a discussion, not a petition.

What? Why do you think he's white? And even if he was -- his post is full of great advice. Any job candidate (or person, in general) would benefit from implementing those ideas to the best of their ability.

It's not "feel good woowoo," it's fundamental human psychology, and I think it's absolutely relevant here.

edit: I should add that I don't actually recommend blindly taking his, or anyone's, advice. Educating oneself should come first. I would recommending reading "Influence," by Robert Cialdini, if you want to learn more about the type of stuff discussed in j45's post.

Nobody said anything about that. The point is, even if you have experience, you can't phone it in during the interview.

If you aren't likeable, many people won't want to hire you no matter how experienced you are. It's just basic psychology.

I think the point is that some people just have mutually exclusive desires, and it's not possible (or practical) to satisfy both parties.

I understand your point, but I think you might be underestimating the importance Firefox has to some people. It was never just a replaceable Web browser for me. It was one of the few pieces of software that seemed to be "made right", built by people who care, and built for people who know what they want.

I always thought of Firefox as a paragon of power-user design, and I loved it for that. In terms of hours of usage, I'm sure I've logged more with Firefox than with any other program in my life. It might not be an exaggeration to say it's the most important piece of software I have ever(!) use.

So this change, in combination with the overall direction Firefox seems to be headed, does evoke fairly strong feelings, and I really don't think they are "actually about something else".

Having said that, I do want to say that I am not angry, and I don't want to vilify anyone. I'm just concerned, and a bit sad, because the browsing experience I've grown up with seems like it won't be around much longer.

Not the OP, but in my experience a "Data analyst" is mostly responsible for writing analytical SQL queries and generating reports. So they don't require a strong math background or programming skills (other than SQL).