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

Canonical’s recruitment process is long and complex

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 460 posts

Re: Canonical’s recruitment process is long and complex

#431

Post by JohnFen »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #296
bgirard wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had interviews with startups that will use a quick interview turn around time as a selling feature to close candidates. I've also interviewed at Two Sigma where I was flown in onsite and by the last interview they had already reviewed most of my feedback and told me that they were going to extend an offer. I got the sense that if I wasn't using a 3rd party recruiter with rules they might have handed me an offer…

I had a similar, but inverse experience - was brought in for an all-day interview, and after half a day both they and I realized that I wasn't going to be a good fit, so they let me go. No hard feelings on my end; I was out of my depth at the time, and knew it, and was glad I wasn't going to have to waste the rest of my day and theirs.

> was glad I wasn't going to have to waste the rest of my day and theirs

If, during an interview, it becomes obvious to you that you aren't a good fit at the place for whatever reason, you don't have to wait for them to end the process early.

Doing so yourself is not only acceptable, it's also a professional courtesy that they will appreciate.

Remember, with all interview processes, you're evaluating the potential employer just as much as they're evaluating you.

Re: Canonical’s recruitment process is long and complex

#432

Post by iraqmtpizza »

rbanffy wrote: post #430
iraqmtpizza wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also interned Japanese-Americans, caused the Arab Spring/Syrian Civil War, made the atomic bomb (oh, you mentioned that one!), ran numerous undisclosed human experimentation projects, imposed multiple central banking systems on the United States, caused the mortgage crisis, and gave China most favoured nation status.

You still can't really say the US government doesn't do things that are deeply impactful, many times very negatively impactful. The US government serves the US's interests. I have no illusions as to how well it behaves towards other countries.

Except most of the things I mentioned hurt Americans first and foremost. You didn't catch that? Gulf War syndrome, Tuskegee, MK Ultra, Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac/Lehman Brothers, destroying Detroit, enriching an adversary totalitarian nuclear state with Mao Zedong on its money, confiscating gold, devaluing the dollar... literally putting American citizens in camps.

The US government serves the US government's interests.

Re: Canonical’s recruitment process is long and complex

#433

Post by iraqmtpizza »

hluska wrote: post #422
iraqmtpizza wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I can’t support anyone who is this much of an asshole." And so I ask again: He's an asshole because he wants to work with extraordinary people and made fun of george W bush? see, I added the W. now answer.

Now answer? Are you fucking kidding me? You think I’m going to follow your orders? Are you really stupid or do you just have poor social skills?

[flagged]

Re: Canonical’s recruitment process is long and complex

#434

Post by iraqmtpizza »

hluska wrote: post #423
iraqmtpizza wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The classic Madeleine Albright-Aaron Swartz dichotomy. Gee, that's a tough call LOL

More word salad.

How is it noise to imply that people who work in government are overwhelmingly blood-sucking bureaucrats who could never hack it in the software world? Who does that drive away that would be useful? Tech lobbyists?

Re: Canonical’s recruitment process is long and complex

#435

Post by rbanffy »

iraqmtpizza wrote: post #432
rbanffy wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You still can't really say the US government doesn't do things that are deeply impactful, many times very negatively impactful. The US government serves the US's interests. I have no illusions as to how well it behaves towards other countries.

Except most of the things I mentioned hurt Americans first and foremost. You didn't catch that? Gulf War syndrome, Tuskegee, MK Ultra, Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac/Lehman Brothers, destroying Detroit, enriching an adversary totalitarian nuclear state with Mao Zedong on its money, confiscating gold, devaluing the dollar... literally putting American citizens in camps. The US government serves the US government's interests.

It is controlled by the people elected. The only solution is to elect better representatives who need to push for stricter regulations on government behavior so that worse representatives have fewer opportunities for making a mess.

Re: Canonical’s recruitment process is long and complex

#436

Post by potamic »

snoman wrote: post #369
thayne wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It certainly doesn't help that many companies never inform you if you don't get a position, so if a candidate doesn't get a response quickly, they are likely to assume they were rejected.

I used to work at a medium sized firm (~2B revenue) and we had a policy where the candidate had an offer or a rejection (with reason) before they left the office. It was hard turning folks down, and it pushed us to have very crisp reasons for saying no, but I think it made us better interviewers and more humane in the process.

This could also backfire with non-confrontational personalities. "Welp, I guess you're hired"

Re: Canonical’s recruitment process is long and complex

#437

Post by iraqmtpizza »

rbanffy wrote: post #435
iraqmtpizza wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except most of the things I mentioned hurt Americans first and foremost. You didn't catch that? Gulf War syndrome, Tuskegee, MK Ultra, Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac/Lehman Brothers, destroying Detroit, enriching an adversary totalitarian nuclear state with Mao Zedong on its money, confiscating gold, devaluing the dollar... literally putting American citizens in camps. The US government serves the US government's interests.

It is controlled by the people elected. The only solution is to elect better representatives who need to push for stricter regulations on government behavior so that worse representatives have fewer opportunities for making a mess.

it's nominally controlled by the elected. until someone accuses the elected of threatening the independence of such and such agency and then the intelligence community (permanent Washington) has six ways from Sunday at getting back at you. stories are planted in all CIA/State Department-aligned i.e. major newspapers. classified information is selectively leaked by the heads of the agencies to their friends in academia. lawsuits fly. the ACLU finds a couch surfer to testify that bees are fish. and it's over before it started.

Re: Canonical’s recruitment process is long and complex

#438

Post by [deleted] »

darth_avocado wrote: post #232
TrackerFF wrote: post #175

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…

I recently had the misfortune of trying to find a job in a rough hiring market. I was appalled by what I saw. Very few companies move fast. Here’s what I saw on average for a software engineering role: 1. Excruciatingly long application processes, especially when companies required you to use workday for applying (30mins - 2 hours) 2. 2 weeks to hear back from the recruiter 3. 1-2 weeks to schedule a recruiter call 4…

[deleted]

Re: Canonical’s recruitment process is long and complex

#439

Post by chc »

hluska wrote: post #383
chc wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Bush Administration did not do any of those things. Reading his comments as a dismissal of those things, rather than the guy running the White House when he wrote it, seems uncharitable.

Words like “Bush” or “current administration” do not occur in the article. Rather, it was just a link. You don’t have any particular reason to be this charitable.

He linked to the White House website. The occupant of the White House at the time was George W. Bush. I am not even trying to be charitable, that's just the most likely reading to me. Basically every talk show host made similar jokes all the time because Bush was widely considered to be an incompetent nepo baby, so I'd need a reason to read it any other way, and I don't really see one here.
Post reply on HN