I think the reason why blog posts are written in this hyperbolic format is because it catches people’s attention, or “click bait”, if you will. If it were toned down in the way you suggested (which I agree with in principle), it might lose more readers before they get to the substance. Just hypothesizing here btw.
"Personal Computer" has long been specifically associated with Windows machines and specifically excludes Mac and Linux. It started with the "IBM Personal Computer" and its branding caused non-IBM machines (eg Macintosh) to use other branding ("a mac"). When IBM partnered with Microsoft to make home computers, this branding really solidified that "PC = Windows".
And then of course, there was the very successful advertising campaign from Apple where they specifically distinguish Macs from PCs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_a_Mac
Essentially, Macs are "personal computers" but they aren't "Personal Computers", if you know what I mean.
I have been rather miffed that the lack of corporate branding/identity for Linux at the time when Macintosh decided to "distinguish" itself now means that GNU/Linux machines are apparently not "personal computers" anymore.
But if PC = IBM PC, and those basically always came with Microsoft software, I guess history supports that interpretation.
archive encodes these files upon upload. you can click the torrent link and download the files it's only ~9GB. consider seeding it for a day or 2 so others can access it quickly too.
So many comments in the vein of "who has time to waste on candidates we aren't going to make an offer to?" - You are damaging your companies brand thinking this way. You want people who you reject to say to themselves "I can't wait to study up and interview here again, they said no, but I still want to work here!"
I agree that being helpful and giving feedback to candidates you don't hire can be beneficial to the company and to the interviewer. However, I would argue an even stronger reason is that it is good to help other people grow, even if it doesn't directly benefit you.
If on the way to work you see someone trip and they can't get up, you should offer them help even if doing so will make you late for an important meeting.
Surely if a rejection was for a reason that a couple weeks of study could "fix," it wasn't worth a rejection, right? Are hirers out there really being THAT picky?
I'm going through resumes right now and rejecting people if I think they need a year or more experience under their belt than what they're presenting. If it's because they know react and not vue, that's not reject worthy at all...
Why can't this be on the scale of 3 or 5 years? I'm reminded of the Maya Angelou quote: "I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel."
I don't remember 99.9% of what recruiters have said to me, but I do remember the two companies (Hulu and LinkedIn) that made me feel like crap and jerked me around. It was 2 years ago and I'm sure most of the people who were a part of that are gone, but I still kind of have that grudge.
Where I work is an agency, so essentially a collection of already experienced designers, engineers, etc that need to be building quality products pretty much day 1. Any of our time we aren't billing to clients is just coming out of our cut.
It's a somewhat ruthless calculation, but we already skim billed time to do things like give ourselves 20% freetime to work on libre projects, train ourselves on new tech, etc. Some of us use that 20% to mentor bootcamp grads (me) which is the kind of help I want to give to green engineers - I'm a selfish boi and don't wanna lump a billable hour cut on top of that. We absolutely don't have time to be pulling someone in that needs 3 more years before they're engineering at the level we need.
Hiring is definitely more art than science. I’d argue that now one has really figured out how to do it well.
Some companies do actually hire people fresh out of college/coding boot camp, and for those people, some feedback and a few weeks studying might make a world of difference.
Done it. Worked really well (got great people, which got more great people, virtuous cycle etc). Struggled to convince a couple of other companies to adopt the mindset. Hoping to do it again some day.
Yeah, life's hard. But isn't that why it's worth it to fight for a better life? I get it though, "better" is relative.
This is so true! The best interview I ever had was at Netflix. They sent a takehome and we actually discussed it in the interview. I got a ton of useful feedback on my code which made me feel I was getting something worthwhile for my time. In the end, I didn't get the offer but was told why (not enough experience building UI's which were a large part of the position) but I was stoked as it was advice I could choose to work on or not.
> I can't wait to study up and interview here again
If the decision to reject was purely objective then sure, but isn't a big part of it if not most of it subjective? And even when the reasons could be objective, I imagine people are deciding in part through gut-feeling and might not be able to articulate the reasons for rejection in an objective enough manner. That's why I imagine people are inclined to fight when given the reasons for rejection.
I mostly disagree. I really can't think of a case where I would want to interview the same person twice. That said, I'm happy to provide feedback if they ask, and when it comes to interviewing, I personally appreciate feedback ONLY when I ask.
I've definitely interviewed green candidates and would be very happy to interview them again in a few years. (This is going to be more true in companies with more selective hiring bars)
Regardless, brand matters as well. You want candidates to have good experiences even if they are rejected as they will talk to peers about company x
Lol, yeah, like when I applied again at the same company after 3 years and they rejected me out of hand before even giving me a chance at an interview because they rejected me before.
Obviously my skills and experience are still exactly the same, so this makes perfect sense.
I don’t know, but I personally think this is a terrible signal.
Minds are made up. I interviewed with the same company in the beginning of my career then again 3-4 years later. I realized they probably didn't know how to interview a dev and were more interested in someone amazing with clients and charming. I would have been prepared to bullshit my five year plan better on the second go-around.
Do you only ask candidates 1 question/only look for 1 attribute? And only hire for one level? Cause otherwise, they could've done great on 8 things but missed on another. Or they did well but not quite well enough for the seniority that was desired. I've gotten feedback like this in the past - "your technical answers were great, but we thought you were a bit too green collaboration- and project-ownership-wise" and it was super useful because in my head before that, it was the places where my technical question answers could've been even better that I'd been beating myself up over.
You can find plenty of competent people to fill a position that you have no room to hire. Its also possible to give an accidentally weak interview.
Treating people like disposable garbage because they didn't check the checkboxes the best is a great way to be a shitty manager and a shitty human being.
Does anyone have resources that talk about writing a TLA+ model for an existing software system as opposed to designing a new system using TLA+ as the design reference?
Agree wholeheartedly with how you posed the question, I would like to expand:
Should Adult (xxx) sites be held accountable for ads for male enlargement pills/snake oils? I personally don't think so. Is the answer to this problem to teach our population that blindly accepting what you read is safe (you can trust information posted on social media/public internet sites as fact) OR do we instead teach our citizens to filter information analytically and do research the way you are taught to in university for example?
Personally I think the former option is an intractable problem. Why try to make it safe for your population NOT to have to think instead of just teaching them how to think critically?
> Why try to make it safe for your population NOT to have to think instead of just teaching them how to think critically?
Hmmm...a question like that is essentially opening up the gates for speculation - the kind of speculation that may not paint the government (the body that seems to be pushing for, as you say, "trustworthy information") in the most benevolent light.
I agree with the essence of what you're getting at - it's the old biblical trope of giving a man a fish vs. teaching a man to fish. But I could think of many possible benefits (for a government) in having a population with a reduced ability or incentive to be analytical and think critically. To be fair, I can think of many possible costs as well - I don't know whether one would outweigh the other.
