71–80 of 82 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks. I rarely saw this usage before, hence the question
It's been standard conversational English since the 1300s.
> I got three "strong yes", eight "yes", and a single "no" from Mark Shuttleworth Mark interviews are always the last in the process but since they’re the only ones that carry an automatic fail despite all other interviewer scores, they should be done first.
There's some weird twisted kind of logic here: Shuttleworth probably sees it as the other interviewers' job to weed out candidates so that he doesn't have to spend as much of his time interviewing candidates. It's a total waste in terms of man-hours spent interviewing, but it means Shuttleworth himself spends less time interviewing.
So, keeping performance constant, attending a lower-performing school gives you a higher chance of being accepted at canonical. How crazy is that?
The "top 10%" thing doesn't make sense mathematically. That depends on the average performance of your classmates. If you were in a school with brilliant students, in a small class, you could be in the top 50%. But with the same performance, just attending a different (low performing) school could put you in the top 5%. So, keeping performance constant, attending a lower-performing school gives you a higher chance of…
The "top 10%" thing doesn't make sense mathematically. That depends on the average performance of your classmates. If you were in a school with brilliant students, in a small class, you could be in the top 50%. But with the same performance, just attending a different (low performing) school could put you in the top 5%. So, keeping performance constant, attending a lower-performing school gives you a higher chance of…
It is crazy. I believe their thinking though is that people have different opportunities, so you should have basically risen to the top at whatever place you were. Yes it is nonsense!
I could objectively be better at math than John from another school. But MY school is extremely competitive, so I'm probably in top 20%. But John doesn't have much competition in his school, so he might be in the top 10% in HIS school. But your system will reject me because I'm in the top 20%, and probably accept John because he's in the top 10%. Total absurdity!
I am fascinated at how this has actually lasted so long without imploding the place - did Mark stop being a cheapskate on salary so people will tolerate this process? Or is it just banking on their good name and mostly getting to work on free software?
By all accounts it’s a great place to work, but not a great place to apply for work …
Canonical people can be great to work with, but it is certainly not a great place to work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's some weird twisted kind of logic here: Shuttleworth probably sees it as the other interviewers' job to weed out candidates so that he doesn't have to spend as much of his time interviewing candidates. It's a total waste in terms of man-hours spent interviewing, but it means Shuttleworth himself spends less time interviewing.
Obvious to me this is a classic boss battle.
> I got three "strong yes", eight "yes", and a single "no" from Mark Shuttleworth Mark interviews are always the last in the process but since they’re the only ones that carry an automatic fail despite all other interviewer scores, they should be done first.
An interview process that allows a single individual to have absolute veto power over multiple prior interview evaluators is, pretty obviously, broken.