461–470 of 496 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would seem to me that you then need to have a chat with a unit owner.
For apartment tenants there is often no "unit owner" and no HOA. Typically a single landlord owns the entire complex.
Resetting an alarm is going to look 'real good' if at some point the place burns down and for sure the building is insured somewhere and for sure that information is something you could dig up. If there is no unit owner and no HOA then multiple tenants will need to band together and get something going, initially we weren't talking about tenants at all, you brought that up and since then you've been tilting at windmills because nothing satisfies your needs. Obviously I won't be able to come up with workable scenarios for each new restriction that you impose because you can keep that up forever.
I'm not in the 'oh, I will just give up because I can't be arsed to solve this safety issue' group, if it really is an issue - and I'm going on the assumption here that it is - then someone will care about that. The key is to locate the someone and then to state your case, and when one method doesn't work to come up with another one that gets you closer.
Learned helplessness is not a solution to anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only reason you can "afford" anything is because other people do shit they would rather not, but do so for the money. If people could actually "afford to make choices" you'd find out pretty soon how dependent you are on others doing the dirty work for you to maintain your living standard. Like sure things aren't perfect, not everyone is compensated proportionally to their contributions, no perfect markets and you…
Your logic here amounts to "some people have it bad therefore everyone needs to have it bad". There are many situations where the world would generally be better if a relevant group of people had the option to choose to go elsewhere. When you are part of such a group and don't have that choice it is perfectly reasonable to be frustrated by the state of things.
I have a friend who was working in this space in 2019. Their customers were hiring something like 10k jobs worldwide annually, which means 500k+ applications to go through. AI was used for the first filter to get a person through to later rounds. It makes sense at that scale, and not for "hiring" but just to make decisions as to who gets to the next round. The alternative is that you end up having to hire so many peo…
If you have 10k jobs and 500k applications, that's 50 applications per job. Spending a few minutes on each application would mean a few hours for the initial screening for each job, but if that job is filled, you'll get a person who'll stay there for a few years. How is that not worth it? Why would you need to automate it? If you're interviewing for people to do some quick task and leave, sure, but companies want lon…
So even if each screener is running 15 minute interviews, they're asking the same questions 20 times a day. Every day. The mental task and repetitiveness just isn't something a person is going to be good at. An AI can do this more effectively and pass on the top candidates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But now you're dealing with a hundred applicants who claim to know how to drive, but actually don't. Either because they never learned, or they aren't capable of it.
That's why a screening is needed. If people lie, it won't make me lower my standards. I'm dealing with this all the time in recruitment. It can be done. People lie all the time or don't read the requirements. You need a way for the ones who really do know how to do the thing you need to demonstrate it to you. Have you ever been in a situation where you had to hire someone to help you with something? Would you really…
Years ago, I hired people at closer to entry level. If they had experience that was a bonus but if they didn't we trained them. If they didn't respond to the training, they were let go after a probationary period.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
just thinking about this, if you had the latitude to explain it more or less exactly as you have here, in human language, and frame it as a screen stage of the application and not an interview, and add: 'hey, I know this is really far from ideal but if you're legitimately interested this probably works in your favour', good people might not mind it. I think most of the issue with this kind of thing, practical stuff a…
That works only for a minute. Then every company having an AI interview stage will "level with you".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Geez. Good one. Was in something similar lately. 10 weeks wasted and a shittiest feedback ever. These companies should be legally required to pay candidates for gauntlets they put them through.
Once I got really detailed feedback from an interview for a job I didn't get. It really took me by surprise! I didn't even have to ask. It was quite interesting too because the things they'd inferred about me - stuff that I had understood or not understood - were just plain wrong. I didn't get everything right, but some bits I did understand fine, they thought I didn't. I'm not sure what to take from that, other than…
One thing to keep in mind is that leetcode is testing (surprise) social anxiety. You can be a great engineer, terrific peer to have in the time when crisis hits but still fail at leetcode problem because someone is watching.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an interviewer who does all his interviews himself, I experience this already. I'll ask questions and candidates will answer them reading from chat gpt output. It's very frustrating and clearly the start of an arms race that must end in requiring face to face interviews and on site employment
Interested to know: when you experience that, have you addressed it directly and said that you have an issue with it, and want them to stop? If so, do they try to pretend they aren't doing it? Or do they apologize and own up to it? Or what? I've been on the interviewer-side, but haven't run into that. I would absolutely see that kind of thing as an ethics violation; like paying someone else to pretend to be you for t…
I'm now leaning heavily on recommendations from existing resources as my preferred interview strategy
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just the fact that you're ready to go all-in arguing about a detail of small talk and start talking about legality and such, is employability poison. And that's something interviewers are looking for. I agree that it's a weird question, but one that the person being interviewed can easily just pass without it being a big deal. The other poster said it's just a question to easily filter out applicants who aren't payin…
As I said I would have just ignored that request in an application, because it sounds inappropriate. I would just give the context that not all people not writing an answer failed to read that request. > And that's something interviewers are looking for. I understood this answer to be part of the written application, in an interview I would just classify this as pointless small talk and just answer something. > Just…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your logic here amounts to "some people have it bad therefore everyone needs to have it bad". There are many situations where the world would generally be better if a relevant group of people had the option to choose to go elsewhere. When you are part of such a group and don't have that choice it is perfectly reasonable to be frustrated by the state of things.
No my logic is "if everyone had the chance to do what they wanted nobody would do what is needed".
Regardless, such observations are not valid arguments against noticing that a particular situation could be improved in a particular way. The logical outcome of such negative lines of thinking is to ultimately arrive at a mentality of trying to drag others down to your own level rather than to lift them up when possible.
Don't be a crab in a bucket.