Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The bulls**t Canonical wants you to jump through before they will give

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 187 posts

Re: The bulls**t Canonical wants you to jump through before they will give

#81

Post by nescioquid »

corrral wrote: post #60
nescioquid wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty entitled freshly-minted BS degree, no doubt. Goes from wanting to work for Canonical to wanting to "punish" them by telling them to stuff it and then posting a screed to reddit -- all from just seeing the application questionnaire. Doesn't seem a good indication for conscientiousness, integrity, and tact, frankly.

> Doesn't seem a good indication for conscientiousness, integrity, and tact, frankly. Those things are for people. Companies can get fucked. They're a tool, and that's it. I don't practice tact toward a screwdriver. This application process is a joke, and warning other humans that this particular tool likes to waste their time is conscientiousness and integrity. Being kind to the people employed by them is commendabl…

Yeah, those things are for people, one of whom is the applicant in question.

If you want something, you will have to jump through hoops. I'm not saying the hoops are legitimate, but you will have to jump through them anyway. My comment was about the person, not the hoops.

If he really didn't want the job that much, then don't bother. If you do, jump through the fucking hoop. It honestly just seems like the person didn't want the job enough to invest in actually applying, but enough to bother publicly attacking a potential employer. What does this really say about the person's character?

Re: The bulls**t Canonical wants you to jump through before they will give

#82

Post by autarch »

lmc wrote: post #78
autarch wrote: post #67

I'm surprised no one else has brought up Oxide's process, which has a similar writing-heavy stage as part of the application. See https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Xtofg-fMQfZoq8Y3oSAKjEgD... for what they ask for. It's not quite as much as Canonical, but it's still a _lot_ of writing to go through just to apply for a position. I considered applying there during my last job search but I just wasn't enthused about i…

It's still a bunch of work but I think i like that one a lot more. It's more open ended and less 'worship us, btw what is your favourite distro?'.

Yeah, it's not as ridiculous, for sure. But I think it'd be better to allow people to apply first for an initial screening and then ask for this stuff in pieces over the course of the process. It's really not right to front load so much work into an application, IMO.

Re: The bulls**t Canonical wants you to jump through before they will give

#83

Post by colejohnson66 »

tssva wrote: post #50
pengaru wrote: post #4

What this tells me is Canonical gets far more applicants than they have positions. But the kinds of people this filter likely selects for doesn't seem like what I'd be interested in, just strange.

The Canonical founder was recently bemoaning the lack of available talent limiting the growth of the company. The issue really seems to be a ridiculous hiring process limiting the available talent pool and therefore limiting company growth.

I’ve seen quite a few suggest that the “labor shortage” of this past year isn’t actually a shortage, but just people believing they’re worth more. Especially in the tech community; people are just more selective about how much BS they put up with in hiring.

Re: The bulls**t Canonical wants you to jump through before they will give

#84

Post by lmc »

autarch wrote: post #82
lmc wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still a bunch of work but I think i like that one a lot more. It's more open ended and less 'worship us, btw what is your favourite distro?'.

Yeah, it's not as ridiculous, for sure. But I think it'd be better to allow people to apply first for an initial screening and then ask for this stuff in pieces over the course of the process. It's really not right to front load so much work into an application, IMO.

True. And I guess that's for a full-fat engineering role?

Re: The bulls**t Canonical wants you to jump through before they will give

#85

Post by autarch »

lmc wrote: post #84
autarch wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's not as ridiculous, for sure. But I think it'd be better to allow people to apply first for an initial screening and then ask for this stuff in pieces over the course of the process. It's really not right to front load so much work into an application, IMO.

True. And I guess that's for a full-fat engineering role?

I think it's for all of the engineering roles. Not sure what "full-fat" means here, though.

Re: The bulls**t Canonical wants you to jump through before they will give

#86

Post by klyrs »

rglullis wrote: post #70
klyrs wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. But I have a full-time job and a family. Combined with the essay's focus on the candidate's high school career, it's a pretty strong signal I'm too old to work there. I'm sure as hell not going to spend a year of my precious spare time on the gamble it'll get me a job where they expect me to continue working off-hours.

The job is for a junior position.

That's not what the posting said.

Re: The bulls**t Canonical wants you to jump through before they will give

#88

Post by cedilla »

JadeNB wrote: post #74
cedilla wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that quote says the opposite of what you seem to imply it does. It says that bullshit like Myers Briggs is misused by laymen. That implies that actual psychometric tests done by experts can be correctly used. The real headscratcher though is that either Canonical thinks psychometrics work, but still bother with all the other nonsense; or they don't think they work but still leave it in in such a long hiring p…

> > such measurements are often misused by laymen, such as with personality tests used in employment procedures. > I think that quote says the opposite of what you seem to imply it does. It says that the use of personality tests in employment procedures is a misuse.

Laymen are mentioned for a reason.

In any case, "personality tests" is not the same as psychometrics. Just like astrology being fraudulent doesn't imply astronomy being unscientific, Myers Briggs being bullshit says nothing about the validity of psychometrics.

It's astonishing. If this line of reasoning was used against other fields of science, many people here would call it out immediately, but psychology is apparently always fair game.

(NB: I don't believe psychometrics are very good indicators in the hiring process.)

Re: The bulls**t Canonical wants you to jump through before they will give

#89

Post by notRobot »

filmgirlcw wrote: post #76

When an almost identical interview questionnaire was posted a few months ago, I was hoping it was some sort of anomaly, or that Canonical would learn from the feedback and alter it. To see something so similar (for a different role) two months later makes it seem far more likely that they have one of the worst hiring pipeline processes I have ever seen. I’m good at these sorts of written/verbal assessments, and even…

> A quality response to this sort of questionnaire would take at least an hour

Maybe I'm an outlier, but it would take me way longer than that. At least a couple hours.

Post reply on HN