311–320 of 460 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> scientists going to antarctica I know someone who applied for a technical job based in antarctica and the interview process was much less arduous than the one described here.
I applied to be an astronaut and that was only 5 or 6 rounds of interviews. Granted, you have a lot more invasive medical tests and being dunked upside down in swimming pools.
Then half a year later they've sent me an email asking how my experience with their hiring process was. I'm still holding off the reply.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't read this comments as anything other than virtue signalling. You can call Mark Shuttleworth an asshole and still use Ubuntu without being a hypocrite.
Ive been feeling like Ubuntu has been failing technically for years and this thread is really helping explain why.
This Shuttleworth guy sounds like a smarmy jackass, and after reading that article on the hiring process, I wouldn't even wanna bother, especially considering I could literally apply at a MAGNAM company and get double the compensation.
They can have their "fanatical fan base employees" with my blessing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you work for the Bush administration? If you did, you should probably accept the criticism. If not, well, how is 20 year old criticism of the government any skin off your back?
Depends on how you take it. I worked for the government during the Bush administration, but not in the administrative staff itself. It's just a shitty and unnecessary jab that rubs me entirely the wrong way.
Having previously worked at a place where it took minimum 3 months to hire someone (but often 6-12), I'd be amazed if Canonical actually ever gets to hire their first choices. What happened was this: By the time the first pick hires had been cleared, they had gotten another job. Same with second pick. Maybe even third, too. Most people don't have the luxury or will to just sit and twiddle their thumbs for months and…
A lot can happen in three months. My wife interviewed years ago for a UK govt research agency. They took three months to respond but did eventually set up an on-site interview. She went along anyway. HR met her at the gate and took her to the office of the person who owned the opportunity. When they arrived and there was no-one at his desk it turned out that he had died two months earlier and that the HR drone hadn't…
They didn't even reply to my application over a waiting period of several months, for a position I was too good a fit for not to at least do a screening. Still slightly miffed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She didn't complain about the panel members being exclusively educated people (which does affect how you think). But she did complain that they are all white (which doesn't). So yeah, go ahead, dig in.
She mentioned demographics and one aspect of that was skin color. You are the one focused on race.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you interview at any startups? This sounds like a standard big-tech run around, but IME most companies that take hiring seriously (i.e. more than "churn management") are not this slow.
Working at a startup is not an aspiration for most. Long hours and low pay for a lotto ticket's chance at a windfall is attractive to a very niche crowd. The vast, vast majority of jobs have godawful applications and hiring process for entirely human, rather than technical, reasons (before anyone at a startup chimes in with 'our platform makes this better!')
I don't think this claim holds outside of technical jobs at big tech and big-tech-aspirers.
I think you're trying to say that jobs with godawful applications/hiring processes acquire this disease for human reasons? If so, we agree. I'd sum it up as decadence.
SMBs, inclusive of the "earlier" stage startups that are a big source of employment for the people who frequent this site, can't afford the decadence.
I was curious about what pond they were fishing in, because that representation of an average experience is totally alien to me. As for which pond "most" people on this site should aspire to fish in (on which I made no claim), ymmv. Just collecting data.
Having previously worked at a place where it took minimum 3 months to hire someone (but often 6-12), I'd be amazed if Canonical actually ever gets to hire their first choices. What happened was this: By the time the first pick hires had been cleared, they had gotten another job. Same with second pick. Maybe even third, too. Most people don't have the luxury or will to just sit and twiddle their thumbs for months and…
Well, you see, the potential cost of losing a good candidate is much less than the potential cost of hiring a bad candidate, so every effort should be made to prevent the latter. There's a Joel on Software or Stack Overflow thing on this....
The issue is more that this process can't possibly be selecting for the best hires.