@cybergibbons Ah, found it - it wasn't an interview, it was their patent (https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2014170646&tab=PCTDESCRIPTION) So, they _probably_ screwed the pooch with the way they implemented the attractiveness scoring *and* failed to check the implication. It was a nice idea, but left things fundamentally flawed https://twitter.com/bentasker/status/1385900531911217153/photo/1