121–130 of 152 posts
I would not be surprised if the blame avoider that passes for a recruiter chooses the safe route and do not hire the person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue is that people get fired and sometimes even humiliated over minor deceptions (like "playing" with dates) while companies routinely protect managers who do much worse things that actually hurt people-- things like promising good reviews and writing bad ones, abusing process for retaliatory or deceptive purposes, and hiring multiple people for the same leadership role at the same time. "Rules are for the prol…
You happen to see this only in what you call "power relationship". I happen to see it like this: people, e.g. software developers, with the same experience and background attributing themselves as "architects", blowing up their programming experience by years and languages they have never seen. You call this harmless cheating because they kill nobody. It's not harmless because it distorts the reality we all operate i…
I happen to see it like this: people, e.g. software developers, with the same experience and background attributing themselves as "architects", blowing up their programming experience by years and languages they have never seen.
Inflated resumes are the natural response to inflated requirements. You can't require 5 years of experience in a technology that's only 4 years old. You can't require 5 years of experience in a dozen different things. I won't speculate on the reasons behind these inflated requirements, but they are definitely inflated.
Also, you can't take a set of requirements and carbon copy it for all of your positions. The difference between a junior position and a senior position should be more than just a year of experience. Likewise, the requirements for positions like architect, developer, and tester should not be identical except for "architecting", "developing", and "testing".
In the end, though, you should view job postings and resumes as a very weak filter. People are going to lie, from small tweaks to outright falsifications, and you're going to have to use other means to weed the liars out. Interviews, training, and probation are going to be your tools here, and no amount of inflated requirements or expectations of "professional honesty" are going to change that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a little hard for me to feel sympathetic with the need to conceal dishonesty on resumes. It depends what the "dishonesty" is. Claiming a skill you don't have is unethical. Bumping your college degree by 5 years in order to seem 5 years younger is, in my opinion, ethically OK. There's a difference between quackery (faking a skill you don't have, and potentially hurting people) and social status inflation. One is…
It's a lie. It's a deliberate, baldfaced lie. I don't want "you" working for me. Who knows what other lies you think are okay because they're "just how people work"? You compare this lie on your resume to being "accidentally inconsistent". Tell me: if HR asked you about the discrepancy (maybe the company requires a background check?), would you admit to your deliberate deception, or would you lie again and say, "Oops…
Sorry to be that guy, but it's bold faced lie, as in print.
LinkedIn scares me more, because I think most 22-year-olds don't really foresee that they might have the need to change their career histories. The idea that you might have to bump your college degree by 5 years is unimaginable at age 22. I don't foresee myself ever needing an explicit lie, but it's hard to keep a story consistent over 20 years. The online paper trail is a bit scary. I wouldn't even have a LinkedIn p…
> I also don't think anyone with data mining talent is going to work for health insurance companies doing intrusive cross-site work for less than a million per year (we're talking about work that isn't just unpleasant or boring but actually evil) Dude. Top people will do work like that for far less. See, e.g., the defense industry, the coal mining industry, etc. And with billions at stake, the insurance companies wil…
I don't know. In my experience, "you get what you pay for" applies to developers like anything else. If you want the very best people, pay them.
Having said that, I don't know if the GP is right about a million per year. I hope it would cost at least that much to pay for such evil behavior but it will actually depend on what other offers people have. After all, TSA agents aren't getting $1m/yr, right?
I've always said we won't create the first strong AI, we'll just wake it up. I hope its friendly. The selection pressures we're putting on its ancestors (to systematically weed out the people who aren't valuable to us) aren't instilling me with a great deal of confidence.
Combined with the current focus on markets, profits and efficiency, this does not bode well. One could arrive at a complete humanity simulation (without even intending to, just to optimize stuff, there is nothing inherently evil or unfriendly). It will eventually become so good at modeling us (at least, humanity as a whole), that wasteful, inefficient, cluttered actual humans aren't needed anymore.
At the same time we're becoming more and more dependent on the external information processing. There will be no terminator-like war with strong AI. We'll be unable to live without it. We'll just fade away, on autopilot, as we matter less and less, brain function after brain function better handled by computers. It's a bit of a dark future vision, at least compared to the "individual mind uploading and living forever" of the singularity optimists, but I have a hard time getting around it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right. So sick of the ethical high-horse most employers/corporations seem to be on re: honesty, etc. when they show no such respect towards employees. They have no problem smiling in your face and calling you family, knowing that they'll downsize/ax your ass in a millisecond, should the numbers dictate. Classic socio/psychopathic Jedi mind tricks...
So sick of the ethical high-horse most employers/corporations seem to be on re: honesty, etc. when they show no such respect towards employees. They have no problem smiling in your face and calling you family, knowing that they'll downsize/ax your ass in a millisecond, should the numbers dictate. At the start of 2012, I was working for a startup that hired 3 people into the same leadership position without knowledge…
... until you're passed up for promotion because, unbeknown to you, your colleague lied about his experience and qualifications. (this has actually happened to me).
In the end it won't be that bad for me, I'll have to quit a job I wasn't happy about anyways, but I'll have to start at the bottom of the ladder again, or start my own company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a lie. It's a deliberate, baldfaced lie. I don't want "you" working for me. Who knows what other lies you think are okay because they're "just how people work"? You compare this lie on your resume to being "accidentally inconsistent". Tell me: if HR asked you about the discrepancy (maybe the company requires a background check?), would you admit to your deliberate deception, or would you lie again and say, "Oops…
>baldfaced lie Sorry to be that guy, but it's bold faced lie, as in print.
I think this kind of profiling will be done on baby-boomers and gen-xers, too, using records of purchases. I believe every US store records who buys what when. This information will never be erased. It will end up being sold to aggregators who will then be able to sell the record of everything you bought since you became an adult. Even using cash will not protect you once face recognition becomes cheap. I think the o…
In my country, they cannot do some profiling because of personal data protection laws (similar to Europe), but I understood that they do use information in that way in the U.S. .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>baldfaced lie Sorry to be that guy, but it's bold faced lie, as in print.
No, it's not. "Bold" is the malapropism, not bald, which is the original term.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll jump in and say yes. I'd never trust someone who lies to get ahead, and I'd make sure they knew it. It's sad that some here seem to think honesty is too high a bar; it's really not.
So which is it?: are you lucky enough to live in a state without sales tax, or do you pay your state's use taxes promptly when you buy stuff online?