64 and unemployed: One man's struggle to be taken seriously as a job applicant • Hacker News Board

Re: 64 and unemployed: One man's struggle to be taken seriously as a job applicant

#311

Post by jammygit » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 2:29 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #287

towaway1138 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to assume this was a path. The two luminaries I know (more famous than you even) did not seem to have luck with it. My advice would be to do personal projects for the pure enjoyment of it, and for learning. I wouldn't expect great career payback, though.

It would need to be a fairly high profile open source project, one that would attract the attention of recruiters. Of course, you'd be compared against the other high profile contributors to it, but what better way to show you can do it? There are other ways to raise one's profile. One could join the C++ Standard committee and actively participate in it. The top C++ companies will notice you. Or the standards committ…

Interesting thoughts, thanks for sharing

Re: 64 and unemployed: One man's struggle to be taken seriously as a job applicant

#312

Post by danieltillett » Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 9:16 AM UTC

snotrockets wrote: post #284

danieltillett wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like misquoting Churchill here and saying meritocracy is the the worst system except for all the alternatives.

You'd also be doing injustice to his saying. A (liberal) democracy gives every one the same opportunity. This isn't the case with so called meritocracy.

Well isn't giving everyone the same opportunity the definintion of a meritocracy? Of course no society is a meritocracy, but it is hard to think of a better system.

Re: 64 and unemployed: One man's struggle to be taken seriously as a job applicant

#313

Post by snotrockets » Fri, Feb 01, 2019, 11:32 PM UTC

danieltillett wrote: post #312

snotrockets wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd also be doing injustice to his saying. A (liberal) democracy gives every one the same opportunity. This isn't the case with so called meritocracy.

Well isn't giving everyone the same opportunity the definintion of a meritocracy? Of course no society is a meritocracy, but it is hard to think of a better system.

No; Meritocracy is judging by the results. If we're both in a dancing competition, but you have dance shoes and I wear a workman's steel toed both, giving you the win is meritocratic, even though the opportunity isn't equal.

If you judging system by it's ideal implementation, then you should argue for Communism (we all know how that turns out, and to what a douchy sausage fest so called "meritocracies" ends as)

Re: 64 and unemployed: One man's struggle to be taken seriously as a job applicant

#314

Post by ericb » Tue, Feb 12, 2019, 9:39 PM UTC

thefringthing wrote: post #301

ericb wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that "fairness" is exactly the right ideal if our goal is the most health and wealth for the most people? I want my doctor to be really great--to be in that job because he is the best at it. I don't want someone placed there by a truly random lottery, and I do want the guy who won the intelligence DNA drawing to be the one I talk to. I also want wealth to motivate people to get into that job, as it is so…

It's pretty telling then you went for male pronouns to describe your hypothetical doctor.

Maybe? My primary care doctor is female, so whatever bias using a gendered pronoun might show, at the end of the day, I picked who I thought was best. On merit.

Re: 64 and unemployed: One man's struggle to be taken seriously as a job applicant

#315

Post by ericb » Tue, Feb 12, 2019, 9:48 PM UTC

snotrockets wrote: post #313

danieltillett wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well isn't giving everyone the same opportunity the definintion of a meritocracy? Of course no society is a meritocracy, but it is hard to think of a better system.

No; Meritocracy is judging by the results. If we're both in a dancing competition, but you have dance shoes and I wear a workman's steel toed both, giving you the win is meritocratic, even though the opportunity isn't equal. If you judging system by it's ideal implementation, then you should argue for Communism (we all know how that turns out, and to what a douchy sausage fest so called "meritocracies" ends as)

> Meritocracy is judging by the results.

Say you need brain surgery. Are you telling me you will choose based on some criteria other than results?

I will pick a 9 headed purple alien if it will do the best job. And I won't care that it had the advantage of 7 parents who were rich doctors and harvard alumni. The place to fix inequality is upstream.

The cure for those advantages is to level the playing field.

> If you judging system by it's ideal implementation, then you should argue for Communism

Straw man. Like visiting a junkyard and concluding all cars don't move. That line of reasoning lets you conclude anything with a failed example can never work.