101–110 of 265 posts
> I saw a job post the other day. > It required 4+ years of experience in FastAPI. > I couldn't apply as I only have 1.5+ years of experience since I created that thing. https://twitter.com/tiangolo/status/1281946592459853830
The only thing I don't like about it is how every line in this tweet ends in a 'fitting' emoji I'm not even that old (born in the 80s), but is that the style adults use now?
Really?
I feel this reflects poorly--in public--on a company's culture. The glossy "work here" page means nothing if there's no follow through in practice. A human may have spent days researching your company and preparing a cover letter, and you can't even click the "no" button?
The workflow system, at the very least, should provide state feedback: received, in review, no, or "let's talk".
> I saw a job post the other day. > It required 4+ years of experience in FastAPI. > I couldn't apply as I only have 1.5+ years of experience since I created that thing. https://twitter.com/tiangolo/status/1281946592459853830
The only thing I don't like about it is how every line in this tweet ends in a 'fitting' emoji I'm not even that old (born in the 80s), but is that the style adults use now?
I'm 99% sure they knew, they did it so you would post it and other people would upvote it and we all would see it on front page of hn.
Recruiters putting silly time requirements on skills is nothing new. My favorite moment of this type was at a meetup for .NET, where a recruiter came in and asked for too many years of experience, and the entire room burst out laughing. She just smiled, accepted the grief we all were giving her, and changed the job description to be accurate. I forget the exact wording she used, but I remember the gist of her respons…
I get that she was actually a nice person who simply didn't know when .NET was invented. But I do not accept that she made a harmless and easily fixed error on the job requirements because of this. Frankly, I'm not that concerned that the job requirements demanded more years of .NET experience then it was possible to have. I am more concerned about all the other requirements that were listed on that job description w…
If for example, a case where a person is discovered to have been wrongly accused and incarcerated would trigger a very serious investigation of the specific people that were involved in that decision (judge, jury, lawyers, experts etc), the system would be much more careful with such acts.
Isn't the whole X years of experience with kind of silly anyways? You grow as a programmer by exposing yourself to new ideas and ways of doing things, but this pretty much gives you a low number of years in a bunch of stuff, not impressive on a resume.
I have become less and less convinced on this. Most recently I had choices for what would ostensibly be a Go-centric job between generalists who had a little Go experience, and people really good at Go, but not as much at the rest of our stack. We went with the generalist under the theory you’re advocating and it was a disaster. The people we hired learned Go, but it takes a while to grok the paradigms and really dev…
Lets say you're hiring for a Java position to make web apps. Is a better candidate someone with lots of desktop Java experience, or someone with lots of Django experience? The answer is of course, it depends. On the person, the job etc. I'd interview both and it's probable the second person has more relevant skills.
The problem with putting emphasis on years of experience is that the second person might not get through the HR filter.
Based on my experience, the second most stupid people work in HR. Most stupid people? Real Estate.
I am not saying that people in HR or RE are stupid by definition, I am sure some very smart people work in these fields. But it is a question of entrance barrier. You can get into HR from nearly any background. Yet, some kind of degree is required in most cases. In RE you do a few weeks training and you are ready to go.
Other fields have tremendous entrance barriers. Lets say a professor in a STEM field. You can find average people there but stupidity is rare.
Isn't the whole X years of experience with kind of silly anyways? You grow as a programmer by exposing yourself to new ideas and ways of doing things, but this pretty much gives you a low number of years in a bunch of stuff, not impressive on a resume.
I have become less and less convinced on this. Most recently I had choices for what would ostensibly be a Go-centric job between generalists who had a little Go experience, and people really good at Go, but not as much at the rest of our stack. We went with the generalist under the theory you’re advocating and it was a disaster. The people we hired learned Go, but it takes a while to grok the paradigms and really dev…
I had a recruiter call me to ask if I'm interested in a job for "c hashtag"