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

Show HN: Open-source resume builder and parser

open-resume.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 207 posts

Re: Show HN: Open-source resume builder and parser

#191

Post by SantalBlush »

bheadmaster wrote: post #159
SantalBlush wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The saying presents it as a dichotomy, which is why the saying is wrong. It is also parroted way too often on HN. It might as well be, "Never attribute to hunger that which can be explained by incompetence." Is it easier to see why that fails as any sort of useful proverb?

It is not a dichotomy, as the saying doesn't say "it must be either malice or stupidity" - it only proposes to also keep supidity in mind in case malice is assumed. Nobody is saying there can't be a third cause - you're fighting a strawman. Besides, what third reason would be relevant in this case, exactly?

>It is not a dichotomy, as the saying doesn't say "it must be either malice or stupidity"

It doesn't need to. The false dichotomy is presented in the phrasing.

>what third reason would be relevant in this case, exactly?

It's not a third reason, which is why you are confused. It is a third possibility, not a third reason. That third possibility is that both malice and stupidity are present. In such a case, if stupidity could adequately explain the action, the saying suggests ruling out malice, which would be incorrect. That is precisely why it is a false dichotomy.

It's not a strawman, you just haven't thought about it correctly.

Re: Show HN: Open-source resume builder and parser

#192

Post by rosmax_1337 »

SantalBlush wrote: post #191
bheadmaster wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not a dichotomy, as the saying doesn't say "it must be either malice or stupidity" - it only proposes to also keep supidity in mind in case malice is assumed. Nobody is saying there can't be a third cause - you're fighting a strawman. Besides, what third reason would be relevant in this case, exactly?

>It is not a dichotomy, as the saying doesn't say "it must be either malice or stupidity" It doesn't need to. The false dichotomy is presented in the phrasing. >what third reason would be relevant in this case, exactly? It's not a third reason, which is why you are confused. It is a third possibility , not a third reason. That third possibility is that both malice and stupidity are present. In such a case, if stupidi…

You have to understand, the world is probabilistic and when working with people even more so. No one here is making an absolutely logical dichotomy which is ripe to be disproven by someone like Diogenes exclaiming "Behold! A man!" whilst holding up a featherless biped.

Re: Show HN: Open-source resume builder and parser

#193

Post by roetlich »

xitang wrote: post #114
pachico wrote: post #29

I would allow people to scrape a LinkedIn profile and get the resume from there.

Great idea. The app currently only supports import from pdf but not linkedin since it is a client side local app and isn't able to do any server side scrape work.

I'd also love import from LinkedIn. Might be possible to do it client side by loading the .pdf generared by LinkedIn's CV export. There is also a browser extension to get a LinkedIn CV as json, maybe you could load that?

Re: Show HN: Open-source resume builder and parser

#194

Post by garfieldnate »

I absolutely loath having to type in my resume on every site form for companies I'm applying to. During a job search, I think I would pay to have a feature that auto-fills these for me. Also, I'd love to be able to fill in translations for my resume. I maintain a basic resume in three languages.

Re: Show HN: Open-source resume builder and parser

#195

Post by bluedemon »

I really like this and would recommend being able to add extra field(s) when doing a custom one. I know that it had a custom one, but I couldn't format the text. It only adds bullet points. And, I could only use 1 custom field. I'd like to be able to add multiple.

Also, it would be great if one can format with markdown syntax.

The other thing is that I imported my resume (pdf) and it didn't pick up things for the right fields. I know it's a WIP, but hopefully the kinks get worked out soon as I'd like to use it.

Re: Show HN: Open-source resume builder and parser

#196

Post by ivolimmen »

philipwhiuk wrote: post #133
mminer237 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the difference between a CV and a résumé? I understand academia uses longer CVS, but I thought they were synonymous terms for general job hunting.

It's lots of minor things: * CVs are generally longer - 2-4 sides. Resumes are more of a one page and done thing. * Resumes often include a mission statement or similar. CVs don't - you'd put that stuff on a 'cover letter', if at all * CVs are generally not adjusted per job - it's everything, with only the older stuff abbreviated. Whereas resumes are tailored.

Well I am Dutch and I personally don't differ between the two. Just different names. Btw my CV is now 7 pages long but I am a consultant.

Re: Show HN: Open-source resume builder and parser

#197

Post by bheadmaster »

SantalBlush wrote: post #191
bheadmaster wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not a dichotomy, as the saying doesn't say "it must be either malice or stupidity" - it only proposes to also keep supidity in mind in case malice is assumed. Nobody is saying there can't be a third cause - you're fighting a strawman. Besides, what third reason would be relevant in this case, exactly?

>It is not a dichotomy, as the saying doesn't say "it must be either malice or stupidity" It doesn't need to. The false dichotomy is presented in the phrasing. >what third reason would be relevant in this case, exactly? It's not a third reason, which is why you are confused. It is a third possibility , not a third reason. That third possibility is that both malice and stupidity are present. In such a case, if stupidi…

> The false dichotomy is presented in the phrasing.

No, it isn't, the phrasing is very clear: if you think it's malice, also consider stupidity. It's an implication - if "A", then "B". It doesn't say anything about the case of "not A".

You're just making shit up now, with personal insults ("you're confused", "you haven't thought about it correctly") added as a filler for your weak reasoning.

Re: Show HN: Open-source resume builder and parser

#199

Post by todotask »

realitysballs wrote: post #156
todotask wrote: post #155

Nice idea for a project and here what I found: Buggy input which break characters into bullet points while filling resume from scratch, could have been spotted before it's shipped.

This is Foss project…

I'm aware, it's also published in Product Hunt and is meant as a feedback and nothing else.

https://www.producthunt.com/posts/openresume

Re: Show HN: Open-source resume builder and parser

#200

Post by SantalBlush »

bheadmaster wrote: post #197
SantalBlush wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It is not a dichotomy, as the saying doesn't say "it must be either malice or stupidity" It doesn't need to. The false dichotomy is presented in the phrasing. >what third reason would be relevant in this case, exactly? It's not a third reason, which is why you are confused. It is a third possibility , not a third reason. That third possibility is that both malice and stupidity are present. In such a case, if stupidi…

> The false dichotomy is presented in the phrasing. No, it isn't, the phrasing is very clear: if you think it's malice, also consider stupidity. It's an implication - if "A", then "B". It doesn't say anything about the case of "not A". You're just making shit up now, with personal insults ("you're confused", "you haven't thought about it correctly") added as a filler for your weak reasoning.

>if you think it's malice, also consider stupidity.

That is not what it is saying. "Never attribute to malice..." has an entirely different meaning from merely considering stupidity as an alternative as you're suggesting.

It means exactly what it says: never attribute [action] to malice. That rules out malice as an explanation. It doesn't say, "maybe don't attribute [action] to malice," or "also consider stupidity," it says, very clearly, "never attribute to malice", which means "do not ever attribute to malice..." So yes, you do seem to be confused about the very clear meaning of this saying.

Post reply on HN