391–400 of 662 posts
> Maybe he wouldn’t have even known how to log into Salesforce.
I think the author is just a pretty bad interviewer.
The thing I don't get is, and probably I'll be downvoted to hell because of that, even though this guy lied about his past, his knowledge is solid. Nobody can guess what the interviewers will ask you and from what I've read from the text he aced those. If this is the tech business rolls what I see that it wants developers with a history, with connections, with "clout" so to speak; doesn't matter if you can help their…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Question: What is freemasonry about and why did you join it? I read up on them quite a bit but I just didn't find any good examples of actual goals and activities they are pursuing. Do Masons have a hacker mentality?
I'm not a Freemason, so I'm probably talking out of turn here, but I've always admired Freemasonry and the Masons I know are pretty cool, so I'll give this a shot. Corrections welcome. Freemasonry is a collection of locally-run fraternities. There is no overarching masonic organization or top-down command structure, it's all done by the local lodge, which may or may not be affiliated with other lodges. They are all "…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i'm not sure what you mean. do you have some reference to point to that says a "contractor" can't be expected to not sub-contract or work in a particular place and time? i'm honestly curious.
Yes, the law . You don’t get to enforce when and where a contractor works. They can perhaps agree to it to keep a good relationship, but they are not obligated, and if they change their mind the only thing you can do is fire them. You also don’t get to choose how they do their job. If they agreed to do something for a given price, they can do it how they see fit, even hiring a subcontractor. Don’t like it? Don’t hire…
So, if I want to contract Beyonce to sing at my wedding, I need to make her my employee or she can legally send someone else to do it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> who feel they have skills but lack credentials, but it is no excuse for falsifying info. Why is it no excuse? Because we work in a system where the majority of employees and employers are trying to do the right thing. But that's becoming less and less true - I've interviewed with plenty of companies who have no problem with wasting days of a potential employees time with large take home tests and I've got no qualms…
It's not just unethical, it's impractical, and the same reason applies to your take-home tests: if the first thing your employer asks you to do is something you want to outsource, what makes you think the tenth thing they ask you to do will be better? It's fair to be annoyed when hiring managers shift costs of filtering over to candidates. If it really bothers you, might be a sign to avoid that company culture entire…
What makes you think the interview process is indicative of the work environment?
Most of the time it isn't.
I've worked at quite a few great places that had ridiculous interview processes.
The thing I don't get is, and probably I'll be downvoted to hell because of that, even though this guy lied about his past, his knowledge is solid. Nobody can guess what the interviewers will ask you and from what I've read from the text he aced those. If this is the tech business rolls what I see that it wants developers with a history, with connections, with "clout" so to speak; doesn't matter if you can help their…
His knowledge is solid, sure, but would you really want to work with someone who has such a strong inclination to cheat and deceive? I certainly wouldn't.
You just never know who might turn up from your past... 1999: I was a sysadmin at an ISP in Austin. One day we had a tour come through, people looking to see if they wanted to colo in our datacenter. In walks in the former CEO and most of the technical staff from the Oklahoma City-based ISP I'd started my career at and left in '96. We laughed, shook hands.. and they headhunted me away a couple months later with a 200…
The thing I don't get is, and probably I'll be downvoted to hell because of that, even though this guy lied about his past, his knowledge is solid. Nobody can guess what the interviewers will ask you and from what I've read from the text he aced those. If this is the tech business rolls what I see that it wants developers with a history, with connections, with "clout" so to speak; doesn't matter if you can help their…
The thing I don't get is, and probably I'll be downvoted to hell because of that, even though this guy lied about his past, his knowledge is solid. Nobody can guess what the interviewers will ask you and from what I've read from the text he aced those. If this is the tech business rolls what I see that it wants developers with a history, with connections, with "clout" so to speak; doesn't matter if you can help their…
His knowledge is solid, sure, but would you really want to work with someone who has such a strong inclination to cheat and deceive? I certainly wouldn't.
So, on an individual basis, no, I would not want to hire that person out of an abundance of caution, but on a broader basis I would not like the pressure to do such a thing to exist to begin with. It's like crime: You want to punish each individual crimes, but you also want policies that lower crime rates, and that does not mean that you "reward crime" or that you "give in to criminals".
We all know the hiring process has some seriously broken elements, so a desperate candidate may feel pressured and justified to do so because the other side does not play nice or rational either - plus pressure from society "it's all your own fault" (if you don't succeed, and you won't get any help from anyone unless you happen to be lucky enough to have the right parents). Here in Germany we just had another (it's a regular thing) headline about "skilled labor shortage in IT" in all major German newspapers. Strange thing is, salaries for skilled workers (engineers, CS) have not risen significantly in a loooong time. Since salaries are not regulated by law that means the companies are lying. Of course, I still would prefer people who don't use a wider development as justification for lying themselves (mismatch of scale/perspective), but I can see and would expect a broader (downward) trend from there.
Or back to (and finishing) the crime example, if you create an environment of immense pressure, bad chances for improvement, etc. and then you compensate for the increase in crimes by punishing people harder (and harder)... sure, some might say it's all justified, why did they commit a crime? That is an interesting example why looking at each case individually may lead to a very different conclusion compared to looking at a broader picture.
Another example is cheating at universities. Individually every student who does it may deserve punishment, but it would be a good idea to look at the reasons for why it's so widespread. You create pressure, something is going to happen on the other end.