←back to thread

My open source project was relicensed by a YC company [license updated]

(twitter.com)
932 points sohzm | 4 comments | 04 Jul 25 02:04 UTC | HN request time: 0.843s | source
Show context
litexlang ◴[04 Jul 25 02:38 UTC] No.44460699[source]▶
Sorry for your story. In those days open source is REALLY HARD. Put your github link here and we will support your project by starring you and spreading your project. You definitely need to fight back.
replies(2): >>44460743 #>>44460754 #
npsomaratna ◴[04 Jul 25 02:51 UTC] No.44460754[source]▶
Not the developer, but here is his repo:

https://github.com/sohzm/cheating-daddy

replies(2): >>44460803 #>>44462376 #
dheerajvs ◴[04 Jul 25 08:19 UTC] No.44462376[source]▶
As an interviewer, I'm seeing a huge increase in proportion of candidates cheating surreptitiously during video interviews. And it's becoming difficult to suspect any wrong-doing unless you're very watchful by looking for academic responses to questions.

Why would anyone encourage building such a tool, I can't fathom.

replies(11): >>44462519 #>>44462688 #>>44462727 #>>44462929 #>>44463152 #>>44463158 #>>44463655 #>>44465775 #>>44465827 #>>44465880 #>>44467024 #
zettabomb ◴[04 Jul 25 08:42 UTC] No.44462519[source]▶
It's pretty simple - people need to eat (and fulfill other basic needs, of course), to eat they need jobs, to get jobs they need to pass the interview. The hiring process in a lot of industries is heavily gamed at this point, to the point that not cheating is basically an automatic fail. So, if you want to eat, you cheat.
replies(3): >>44463087 #>>44463145 #>>44464935 #
Simon_O_Rourke ◴[04 Jul 25 10:06 UTC] No.44463087[source]▶
Doing whatever it takes to get the foot in the door may be encouraged, but only to a point and I think out and out cheating is probably crossing a line... As would murder, arson etc. etc.

If cheating means asking someone in the company you're interviewing for a peek at what will be asked then great. In my book that's using leverage.

Reviewing previously posted interview tests is probably recommended.

Hooking up a copilot to answer interview questions for you in real time is probably less so.

replies(1): >>44464465 #
Gregaros ◴[04 Jul 25 13:40 UTC] No.44464465[source]▶
> If cheating means asking someone in the company you're interviewing for a peek at what will be asked then great. In my book that's using leverage.

In my book that is unambiguously unethical and should get the contact fired. I am shocked to see this approach promoted in such a blasé manner.

replies(1): >>44473178 #
1. Simon_O_Rourke ◴[05 Jul 25 14:53 UTC] No.44473178[source]▶
How is it unethical? Say you ask whoever what's being asked and they say you need to sort a string in place and then discuss how a random forest gets trained... You still need to answer those questions AND know enough to answer the follow up questions. If you're no good you'll be still found out. It just means you'll have a head start over someone without those kinds of contacts. So what level of utilizing your professional network crosses a line? Does a recommendation cross a line because I know for a fact that internal recommendations are moved to the head of the queue in most companies.
replies(1): >>44489226 #
2. Gregaros ◴[07 Jul 25 11:37 UTC] No.44489226[source]▶
Presumably the value in knowing "you need to sort a string in place and then discuss how a random forest gets trained" is that it impacts your answers - for instance, by allowing you to look this up before the interview while appearing to the interviewers to he operating unfer the dame conditions as the other candidates, who did not know to. Your performance then appears as a signal of broader inwoledge and capability than you possess - you have, as is the entire point here and which I should not need to spell out, gained an advantage over other candidates by virtue of the information which was intentionally leaked.

If the point of the interview were "answer those questions AND know enough to answer the follow up questions" _once told what to expect and prep_, they’d be sharing those questions with all candidates. If you feel that saying to the interviewers "by the way, I did know this because [X] told me they’d be here" wouldn’t impact outcomes, then great. If you feel you’d need to hide that, then you’re aware this involves dishonesty - and if you still struggle to see how that’s unethical, lets just make sure we never need to work together.

replies(1): >>44493750 #
3. Simon_O_Rourke ◴[07 Jul 25 19:20 UTC] No.44493750[source]▶
> lets just make sure we never need to work together

Seeing as how you seem to prefer to let everyone else steal a march on you in interviews in the interest of "fairness", that's not likely to happen anytime soon.

replies(1): >>44496635 #
4. Gregaros ◴[08 Jul 25 03:15 UTC] No.44496635{3}[source]▶
This is correct—I do not engage ethics only when it won’t cost me, nor take convenience into account when determining where my lines are. Perhaps I’m privileged to have that option.