It is less secure than your standard symmetric encryption. I guess they would use deterministic encryption in which 2 entries with same email address will have the same record string ( this leaks information to attacker ). Prefix search & sort can be achieved by using order preserving encryption. Not really sure about sub-string though.
I've researched order preserving encryption before but the tradeoffs (mainly that the attacker can tell the order and use that to narrow the search space) always seemed like high risk.
High risk compared to what? The alternative is absolutely no privacy (status quo) or no/limited functionality (not very useful). Seems like strictly better than having no privacy.
Using fake encryption is much riskier than no encryption, because if you think you are safe you will do unsafe things with your data. If you know you are unsafe then you will take appropriate precautions.
Mandated paternity leaves is to provide an equal part contributions towards children for both the mother and the father. Otherwise the mother take most of the hit ( as evidence in countries without it ).
It's also to create gender equality in the work place. If there's only maternity leave then hiring a woman of childbearing age has a higher risk for an employer than hiring a man. This leads to discrimination in the workplace with women having lower salaries, less access to interesting projects etc.. because the thinking goes that she is likely to become pregnant and have maternity leave.
In countries where men have mandatory paternity leaves that are significant this imbalance is greatly reduced.
I notice there seems to be a "No true Scottman" issue here where the critics is stating one problem and the proponent is like "yeah but what if we change it to this". I'm guessing the process at your place is much more tolerable than what people have been complaining.
I wonder at what point does it stop being "whiteboard interview" and just a "few sprinkle of algorithmic questions to test logical skill".
Also when the talents pool is large enough, obviously you can do as many brutal questions as you can and still fill the headcounts with good developers. So I think saying "but it still works" is not very productive.
- I like [thing I do at my job] and I don't mind doing it outside of working hours. An incidental side benefit of this is I learn skills that enhance my career.
- A company I work for or am interviewing at is unhappy I don't like doing [thing I do there] outside of working hours, and either will fire me or not hire me unless I change.
The difference is "do companies use this as a metric", and I think it's pretty clear they shouldn't. If they do, they run into all kinds of other biases, mostly that you select out people who have family obligations (you're a parent, your partner also works, you have a sick family member, etc.).
Further, it creates a race to the bottom dynamic where a super important part of your life--your career--asks more and more from the other parts of your life. You shouldn't be able to get ahead of other people in your career by telling your kid to figure out algebra on their own, and if you can, people who advance in their careers (who will have more power in the workplace and thus society) will be the kinds of people who either had the resources to otherwise meet their other obligations (hire a tutor, nurse, etc.), or the kinds of people who didn't care about shirking them.
That's why maintaining this line is so important. It avoids an incentive structure that would empower the already privileged or the irresponsible.
The chemical industry have has a much more lengthy history of bad chemicals: PFOA, asbestos, leaded gas, HCFCs... how can we be sure that plastic is not one of these ?
