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

111–120 of 187 posts

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

#111

Post by bhhaskin »

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…

I am sure that is the exact attitude they are looking to filter out. And to be honest I can't think of any employer that is going to want hire an applicant that thinks they can get fucked, or think that what they do is nothing more that work for a "tool".

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

#112

Post by manfre »

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…

I applied for positions there late last year. I appreciated that they were upfront about the steps of their process. It made it a relatively quick decision to not continue.

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

#114

Post by hedora »

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…

Meh. I switched away from Ubuntu years ago, but it still makes me sad to see they're this broken of a company.

I guess it explains the plummeting quality of the technical decisions they make.

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

#115

Post by justinjlynn »

FabHK wrote: post #105
justinjlynn wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Standardized aptitude and personality tests These are almost always extremely discriminatory when it comes to neurodiverse populations and I'm saddened that Canonical uses the equivalent of phrenology in its hiring process. sigh

> the equivalent of phrenology I mean, there are plenty of bad tests out there (Meyers Briggs etc.), but good aptitude and personality tests might well be the best (objective, reliable, valid...) tests of aptitude and personality there are, no?

What do you mean by "good" and for whom is it good and why?

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

#116

Post by raverbashing »

robonerd wrote: post #25

These are such inane questions. > What was your first Linux distribution, and why did you start there? "Red Hat Linux, and I started there because I found a CD to install it in the cover of Red Hat Linux For Dummies at my local library." What does that say about my qualifications for the job? I can scarcely imagine. Clearly the questions are prompting for answers that will be evaluated in some vague bullshit way, so…

Well, as a start, it is a loaded question

But I get it. They're trying to get people that "love linux". It's part of the cultural fit, sure

Now think for a bit about hiring for people that "love something" and what does that tell about the professional environment of that company. Wouldn't it be better if they actually hired people that are good at the job?

For all the talk about diversity and inclusion, this is a very good example of how the opposite looks like.

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

#117

Post by morelisp »

ahahahahah wrote: post #62
morelisp wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If 80% are good submissions it’s a useless filter and should be dropped.

That wouldn't necessarily be true even if 100% of submissions were good, as you've completely discounted the cases where no submission is made. You can argue about whether the whole thing has any point or use, but a low % bad on submissions isn't on its own a sign that such a filter isn't useful.

Looking at the funnel holistically, I doubt anyone who didn't write the essay would make it through the "standardized aptitude and personality tests". And even so - if the filter is submitted vs. didn't submit - there's no need to actually waste time reading them...

(If that sounds absurd, it is and this funnel is broken as hell.)

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

#118

Post by allarm »

robonerd wrote: post #25

These are such inane questions. > What was your first Linux distribution, and why did you start there? "Red Hat Linux, and I started there because I found a CD to install it in the cover of Red Hat Linux For Dummies at my local library." What does that say about my qualifications for the job? I can scarcely imagine. Clearly the questions are prompting for answers that will be evaluated in some vague bullshit way, so…

Funny enough, I have a great answer to this question - my first distro was exactly Ubuntu, in 2005. They shipped me a couple of dozens of CDs that I distributed in my city, mainly to my collagues and members of the local LUG. I think I still have some CDs from this batch.

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

#119

Post by aaaaaaaaata »

allarm wrote: post #118
robonerd wrote: post #25

These are such inane questions. > What was your first Linux distribution, and why did you start there? "Red Hat Linux, and I started there because I found a CD to install it in the cover of Red Hat Linux For Dummies at my local library." What does that say about my qualifications for the job? I can scarcely imagine. Clearly the questions are prompting for answers that will be evaluated in some vague bullshit way, so…

Funny enough, I have a great answer to this question - my first distro was exactly Ubuntu, in 2005. They shipped me a couple of dozens of CDs that I distributed in my city, mainly to my collagues and members of the local LUG. I think I still have some CDs from this batch.

LUG == Linux User Group

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

#120

Post by corrral »

nescioquid wrote: post #81
corrral wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 did…

> 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?

They're thoughtful enough to warn others. Even at the risk of people like you thinking ill of them over it. Rather kind of them, I think.

[EDIT] Do pointed reviews of bad products bother you, too? Seems like the same thing, to me.

Post reply on HN