6 ms·

lolo I like: "It is maddening when the court lets guilty criminals go free >> SA" Yeah, what is the point of having a court of law anyway, because the test ta

lolo I like: "It is maddening when the court lets guilty criminals go free >> SA" Yeah, what is the point of having a court of law anyway, because the test taker knows all.

praptak 13y ago
There are much worse ones. I seriously hope that the key is fake. You are supposed to Strongly Disagree with: "When you are annoyed with something, you say so" "When people make mistakes, you correct them" "You are not afraid to tell someone off" ... and Strongly Agree with: "Any trouble you have is your own fault" "You avoid arguments as much as possible" "You finish your work no matter what" This is what the wicked stepmother would ask the candidate for a Cinderella, with the added benefit of being too insecure to leave her for Prince Charming.
- HarryHirsch 13y ago
  The key is correct. Remember you are a mindless drone, as such you are not expected to take charge. Them above, they know best. Anyone remember that case when a prank caller called a McDonalds, telling them that they were management and that they should strip-search a female employee? McDonalds has an employee handbook with all the procedures for the robot, and if you can make it appear that what you ask is in the handbook you have hacked the robot. This is the background to that story. Excellent robots they have at McDonalds. The reason for this procedure is that they want to pick up people from the streets and train them in a week. This is how you do it.
  - nekopa 13y ago
    I think the caller pretended to be a cop. Pretty sure they made a movie about it recently...
    - AnIrishDuck 13y ago
      Not sure about a movie, but it was the lede case in a Law & Order SVU episode: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1015439/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1015439/
    - HarryHirsch 13y ago
      One would think they changed the line in the manual about cooperating with law enforcement to something more detailed. Note: I'm saying "something more detailed", not "something more appropiate to situation". The robot must not be required to think ever.
wpietri 13y ago
Or they could be modestly conversant with the basics of criminal law. The courts are designed to let some portion of the guilty go free: E.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation For example, in any case where the evidence was obtained illegally, a person who is provably guilty may not be convicted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
- snake_plissken 13y ago
  I feel like this validates my comment? The two notions regarding criminal law you post are not maddening, but thoroughly reassuring.
  - wpietri 13y ago
    They are reassuring from a systemic design perspective, or from the perspective of someone who is accused but innocent. But in the individual case of an obviously guilty person going free, it is legitimately maddening.
    - crucini 13y ago
      I think with more perspective, there is nothing maddening about it. It's like a pool filter. Any one particle of feces can float around the pool forever, but in aggregate the feces level is reduced.
      - wpietri 13y ago
        I think that's a valid perspective, but that's not the only one. If you have been a victim of a crime and the perp walks, it's reasonable to say something besides, "Thanks goodness our system works to protect the innocent!" I also think prosecutors should always be a little maddened by it. It's they're job to keep the guilty-but-free error as low as possible. Or to put it differently, aggregate feces reduction is great, but you are unlikely to say that if you discover a bit of somebody's poop in your mouth. And you never want the person in charge of cleaning the pool to say, "Fuck it, a little poop never killed anybody."
omegaham 13y ago
This is disturbing on many levels to me. Someone who is "maddened" when a guilty criminal goes free demonstrates clear ignorance of the justice system as well as a tendency to be instigated by demagogues. On the other hand, this test as a whole seems to be selecting for someone who is pliant and believes whatever he is told to believe, the sort of person who actually believes the HR indoctrination and the like. In this regard, I think the question is very revealing - someone who would answer "Disagree" to this question reveals that he understands that our judicial system is not perfect and reacts with skepticism whenever he is told by the media not to value human rights. Such a person would be more likely to stand up for himself in the workplace when his rights or the rights of others are violated. It's actually rather clever if you're looking at it through the eyes of an asshole. By the way, your username cracks me up.
crucini 13y ago
Yes, that one surprised me. I would think the personality type they want is never maddened.

lolo I like: "It is maddening when the court lets guilty criminals go free >> SA" Yeah, what is the point of having a court of law anyway, because the test taker knows all.

praptak 13y ago

There are much worse ones. I seriously hope that the key is fake. You are supposed to Strongly Disagree with: "When you are annoyed with something, you say so" "When people make mistakes, you correct them" "You are not afraid to tell someone off" ... and Strongly Agree with: "Any trouble you have is your own fault" "You avoid arguments as much as possible" "You finish your work no matter what" This is what the wicked stepmother would ask the candidate for a Cinderella, with the added benefit of being too insecure to leave her for Prince Charming.

HarryHirsch 13y ago
The key is correct. Remember you are a mindless drone, as such you are not expected to take charge. Them above, they know best. Anyone remember that case when a prank caller called a McDonalds, telling them that they were management and that they should strip-search a female employee? McDonalds has an employee handbook with all the procedures for the robot, and if you can make it appear that what you ask is in the handbook you have hacked the robot. This is the background to that story. Excellent robots they have at McDonalds. The reason for this procedure is that they want to pick up people from the streets and train them in a week. This is how you do it.
- nekopa 13y ago
  I think the caller pretended to be a cop. Pretty sure they made a movie about it recently...
  - AnIrishDuck 13y ago
    Not sure about a movie, but it was the lede case in a Law & Order SVU episode: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1015439/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1015439/
  - HarryHirsch 13y ago
    One would think they changed the line in the manual about cooperating with law enforcement to something more detailed. Note: I'm saying "something more detailed", not "something more appropiate to situation". The robot must not be required to think ever.

wpietri 13y ago

Or they could be modestly conversant with the basics of criminal law. The courts are designed to let some portion of the guilty go free: E.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation For example, in any case where the evidence was obtained illegally, a person who is provably guilty may not be convicted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree

snake_plissken 13y ago
I feel like this validates my comment? The two notions regarding criminal law you post are not maddening, but thoroughly reassuring.
- wpietri 13y ago
  They are reassuring from a systemic design perspective, or from the perspective of someone who is accused but innocent. But in the individual case of an obviously guilty person going free, it is legitimately maddening.
  - crucini 13y ago
    I think with more perspective, there is nothing maddening about it. It's like a pool filter. Any one particle of feces can float around the pool forever, but in aggregate the feces level is reduced.
    - wpietri 13y ago
      I think that's a valid perspective, but that's not the only one. If you have been a victim of a crime and the perp walks, it's reasonable to say something besides, "Thanks goodness our system works to protect the innocent!" I also think prosecutors should always be a little maddened by it. It's they're job to keep the guilty-but-free error as low as possible. Or to put it differently, aggregate feces reduction is great, but you are unlikely to say that if you discover a bit of somebody's poop in your mouth. And you never want the person in charge of cleaning the pool to say, "Fuck it, a little poop never killed anybody."

omegaham 13y ago

This is disturbing on many levels to me. Someone who is "maddened" when a guilty criminal goes free demonstrates clear ignorance of the justice system as well as a tendency to be instigated by demagogues. On the other hand, this test as a whole seems to be selecting for someone who is pliant and believes whatever he is told to believe, the sort of person who actually believes the HR indoctrination and the like. In this regard, I think the question is very revealing - someone who would answer "Disagree" to this question reveals that he understands that our judicial system is not perfect and reacts with skepticism whenever he is told by the media not to value human rights. Such a person would be more likely to stand up for himself in the workplace when his rights or the rights of others are violated. It's actually rather clever if you're looking at it through the eyes of an asshole. By the way, your username cracks me up.

crucini 13y ago

Yes, that one surprised me. I would think the personality type they want is never maddened.