Yes, that response was insufficient on a number of points. But what struck me about their statement was this:

Why in the world do companies keep insisting that datamining and delivering ads "enhances the experience for users"? They can't possibly believe that. If they do, then they're hopelessly delusional. If they don't, then they're scumbag liars. Either way, it does nothing but make them look terrible.

I was going to say something like this. Linux has been as easy (or easier, with some distros) to install as Windows for years now.

That was because of Microsoft? I hate, hate, hate that practice, but I assumed that it was just because the computer manufacturers wanted to save a dime.

Well, I'll just add Lenovo onto my list of companies whose products I will never again purchase. That they could think this was an acceptable thing to do tells me that they cannot ever be trusted.

I think you're mixing up two different levels of abstraction.

Indeed, and the NN algorithms describe a predefined task that can be summarized as "train and operate a neural network". That's one level of abstraction. Once trained and operating according to the algorithm, then the NN proceeds to do the tasks it is meant for. There is no algorithm that the NN follows at this level of abstraction -- there is only the algorithm for how the NN itself operates, not for the specific task that NN is being used for.

I don't think so, because saying something like that is not supported by evidence. The human brain doesn't actually work like neural networks do. Neural networks are only loosely inspired by one very, very narrow and specific aspect of the mechanics of the brain.

The human brain does this sort of thing all the time. You can see shapes in static, of course, but white noise doesn't elicit the strongest rate of this sort of error. People are constantly misidentifying things that are seen in a natural noisy environments (such as in bushes, for instance) when it's dark. Including seeing large animals that simply aren't there.

One of the main reasons we have so many problems with privacy and security these days is precisely because of those simpler times when nobody really worried about the implications of various technologies. We're much better off being cynical.

This is one of the big reasons why I don't use G+ (or Facebook, etc.)

If the store employees were somehow transferring their visual memory into a massive database then the outcry would be exactly the same.

Considering what qualifies for the label "terrorist" these days, putting it in quotes isn't unreasonable.

While terrorists certainly exist, I don't believe for a moment that there are a lot of them walking among us. I think there's a very tiny number of them.

I agree.

This entirely depends on how they do it and what the false positive rate is.

Then you have a problem, because that database exists and is tracking you for your entire life. It has existed for years now.

Indeed. I am so torn over this. On the one hand, the technology is very cool. On the other hand, the inevitability of abuse seems to outweigh the benefits.

I'm not claiming otherwise! I'm saying that there are a lot of people who buy games and have rather low expectations in terms of gameplay. That's fair, people like what they like. My point isn't that people should have tastes similar to mine, it's that review scores are not sufficient to cover these differences, and are therefore entirely worthless for me.

Then you should be asking those questions, not a really vague one like "Suppose you wanted to send me a file with very sensitive information, how would you encrypt it in such a way that I would decrypt it?"

Right, which is an absolutely terrible question because it's too vague. Vague questions are always red flags in an interview -- there are too many possible ways of answering to be able to determine which is the "right" answer, and applicants will tend to start looking for where the trick is, since it sounds like a trick question.

The better approach is to be specific in the questions. Plus, asking specific questions will make the interview process for accurate.

Correct, but that is also a terrible question to ask for the same reason. There are multiple ways of correctly answering it, but with no clear hint as to which is the answer the interviewer wants.

There is far more that can be known than a single person can know, so you should never, ever assume that a developer is skilled (or even knowledgeable) in a particular specialty based only on the number of years experience they have. I think you're doing a disservice in your process for finding qualified applicants: if you want them to know about PKI, for example, then you need to specify that in the job listing.