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

201–207 of 207 posts

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

#201

Post by rosmax_1337 »

SantalBlush wrote: post #200
bheadmaster wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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,"…

Do you also believe that the saying "An apple a day keeps the doctor away." means to persuade people to increase their consumption of specifically apples, once each day? Rather than meaning to explain that fruits (and even vegetables) are good for your health in general, with no specific amounts prescribed?

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

#202

Post by IIsi50MHz »

mminer237 wrote: post #63
thebruce87m wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s an interesting claim - out of interest I looked up how many countries actually use a resume over a CV and some sources say only United States, Australia, and Canada.

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.

CV is your life's work (all of it). It tends to get longer as you live. Résumé is a summary. It typically is one or two pages[1], and can omit anything not deemed relevant to the recipient.

[1] Sidebar: Every bit of résumé advice is "fighting words", with diehard adherents on opposing sides. In this instance, "1 page" can be taken as "What have they been doing with their life? Discard it.", while "2 page" can be taken as "Wasting my time. Discard it.". The most successful strategy is hard to achieve: know the personal pet-peeves of the recipient, and adjust accordingly.

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

#203

Post by ShannonMita »

Weekend project, nice work! My background is in this space and another potential feature you could look to utilise is allowing the user to input a specific job advert and it revises the resume to pull out anything specific within it to make it as relevant as possible to that job advert.

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

#204

Post by bheadmaster »

SantalBlush wrote: post #200
bheadmaster wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 means exactly what it says: never attribute [action] to malice

No, it does not. You are blatantly misquoting the original statement. Since you're so stuck up on the literal phrasing, let's be precise: never attribute to malice what can be adequatly explained by stupidity.

Which means, if you are attributing some action to malice, then stop and consider whether stupidity is an adequate explanation. And if it is, then don't attribute it to malice. And if not, then feel free to attribute it to malice! This is in no way "rules out" malice as an explanation. If there is any evidence of malice, then by definition stupidity will not explain that evidence, and thus will not be an adequate explanation. So there is no dichotomy either.

The very sentence is merely a statement on how to evaluate intentions in light of limited evidence - it says nothing about the truth, as human knowledge is always limited by available information, especially in human relations.

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

#205

Post by SantalBlush »

bheadmaster wrote: post #204
SantalBlush wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 means exactly what it says: never attribute [action] to malice No, it does not. You are blatantly misquoting the original statement. Since you're so stuck up on the literal phrasing, let's be precise: never attribute to malice what can be adequatly explained by stupidity . Which means, if you are attributing some action to malice, then stop and consider whether stupidity is an adequate explanation. And if it is,…

> Which means, if you are attributing some action to malice, then stop and consider whether stupidity is an adequate explanation. And if it is, then don't attribute it to malice.

Yes, this is exactly what I am saying. We agree, and you finally get it. You are describing the false dichotomy perfectly: "If it is adequately be explained by stupidity, then don't attribute it to malice." That is the false dichotomy, because both could be present at the same time.

>You are blatantly misquoting the original statement

No, I used ellipses for a reason: "Never attribute to malice..." means there is more to the quote, but I am focusing on this specific part. I could have made that more clear in my writing though. At any rate, we're done here, because we agree on the meaning of the saying.

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

#206

Post by bheadmaster »

SantalBlush wrote: post #205
bheadmaster wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It means exactly what it says: never attribute [action] to malice No, it does not. You are blatantly misquoting the original statement. Since you're so stuck up on the literal phrasing, let's be precise: never attribute to malice what can be adequatly explained by stupidity . Which means, if you are attributing some action to malice, then stop and consider whether stupidity is an adequate explanation. And if it is,…

> Which means, if you are attributing some action to malice, then stop and consider whether stupidity is an adequate explanation. And if it is, then don't attribute it to malice. Yes, this is exactly what I am saying. We agree, and you finally get it. You are describing the false dichotomy perfectly: "If it is adequately be explained by stupidity, then don't attribute it to malice." That is the false dichotomy, becau…

> We agree, and you finally get it.

No, we don't agree, and it is not me who finally got it. You explicitly wrote: "It means exactly what it says: never attribute [action] to malice" which I explicitly disagreed with. Either you have changed your mind, in which case you have no business acting as if you were right all along, or we don't agree.

> I could have made that more clear in my writing though

Yes, you could. Nobody can read your mind, only your words. Try not being so arrogant next time.

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

#207

Post by SantalBlush »

bheadmaster wrote: post #206
SantalBlush wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which means, if you are attributing some action to malice, then stop and consider whether stupidity is an adequate explanation. And if it is, then don't attribute it to malice. Yes, this is exactly what I am saying. We agree, and you finally get it. You are describing the false dichotomy perfectly: "If it is adequately be explained by stupidity, then don't attribute it to malice." That is the false dichotomy, becau…

> We agree, and you finally get it. No, we don't agree, and it is not me who finally got it. You explicitly wrote: "It means exactly what it says: never attribute [action] to malice" which I explicitly disagreed with. Either you have changed your mind, in which case you have no business acting as if you were right all along, or we don't agree. > I could have made that more clear in my writing though Yes, you could. N…

>No, we don't agree, and it is not me who finally got it.

Well, which is it? Do we not agree, or have I "finally got it" ("it" being, I assume, what you're trying to convey)? Because if I finally got what you're saying, then that suggests we would be in agreement. Or maybe you mean you've changed your position and I "finally got" your original argument, but now you're onto a new one. If that is the case, then please clarify your new position so I can finally get that one as well.

The saying presents a false dichotomy, which is highlighted here:

>...stop and consider whether stupidity is an adequate explanation. And if it is, then don't attribute it to malice

This is a false dichotomy because it is saying if stupidity is present, then don't attribute it to malice. But both can be present at the same time, in which case rejecting malice would be incorrect. Do you understand now? It is very simple, and this is what I wrote toward the top of the thread. You're grasping at straws here, and my position has not changed the entire time.

Please, read the saying again, read our discussion again, and think about it before you respond. What you're writing is incorrect.

Post reply on HN