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

I wanna work at Instagram

iwannaworkatinstagram.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 215 posts

Re: I wanna work at Instagram

#161

Post by alex_carlill »

edw519 wrote: post #86

I never wear high heels. So I can crawl into cracks and crevices to snap awesome pics... AFAIC, automatic interview line. It says so much: - She understands the ugly stuff needed to get to the pretty stuff. - She's willing to do the ugly stuff. - Her work is more important than her ego (I think). - She "gets it". (Somehow I don't imagine a poser would have ever thought of putting it quite this way.)

this comment is possibly the most asinine thing I've read all day - naive, ignorant and kinda sexist as well. whether or not someone wears high heels says very little about them, and drawing conclusions from its insertion in a CV is beyond stupid.

Re: I wanna work at Instagram

#162

Post by alex_carlill »

edw519 wrote: post #86

I never wear high heels. So I can crawl into cracks and crevices to snap awesome pics... AFAIC, automatic interview line. It says so much: - She understands the ugly stuff needed to get to the pretty stuff. - She's willing to do the ugly stuff. - Her work is more important than her ego (I think). - She "gets it". (Somehow I don't imagine a poser would have ever thought of putting it quite this way.)

"She understand the ugly stuff needed to get to the pretty stuff".

could you be any more sexist/patronising?

"Her work is more important than her ego"

yeah, because a woman's ego = her appearance

yr analysis of that line is emblematic of the absurd good looks/competence false dichotomy - as well as the quasiautistic lack of social comprehension - that plagues parts of the tech world.

I will say this much, though - it's a fairly clever (if cynically so) thing to put in a CV, as it's perfectly calculated to fool geeks like edw519.

Re: I wanna work at Instagram

#163

Post by stz »

btucker wrote: post #54
alex_carlill wrote: post #21

I'd just like to put it out there that when I run a company we will automatically disqualify anyone who tries to get a job w/ us in this way. So remember that if you'd like to work for me sometime in the near future.

Well all power to you! But should you be put in such a position some day, I suggest being open to learning from some of the great leaders in history. Not to say you want to hire an army of groupie lightweights, but passion is not a quality to undervalue.

Congratulations on putting in the time and passion. Fantastic effort and I have no doubt something will come of it for you.

Re: I wanna work at Instagram

#165

Post by tlrobinson »

I always find these kinds of "résumés" rather awkward. Yes, companies usually like to hire people who are passionate about the product, but it's possible to be passionate in a creepy obsessive way too.

Re: I wanna work at Instagram

#166

Post by dchest »

Confusion wrote: post #145
dchest wrote: post #40

Don't want to sound rude, but the lens ("I made this") has pretty bad type work. Kerning is off, the curve is not right ( http://i.imgur.com/tpDqv.png ). The drop shadow is also strange. Overall, there's not enough attention to detail.

Now you've made me curious: what's wrong with the curve? And couldn't the font accurately represent Leica's actual font?

Here's the approximate path of text: http://i.imgur.com/Usrgf.png

compare: http://i.imgur.com/uD9nT.png (thanks, Samuel_Michon)

The font is okay, but kerning is not good -- you can clearly see it in "VARIO" (IO), and E72 (7).

Re: I wanna work at Instagram

#167

Post by toddmorey »

apl wrote: post #13

At this point, there's nothing innovative or quirky about "active applications." Especially if they're rather mediocre. EDIT: After looking through the whole thing, I have to revise my opinion. It doesn't even qualify as mediocre -- copy and design are surprisingly awful. Large quantities of pseudo-charming nonsense ("I'm vehement about creating kick-ass interactions", "i can write a mean agile spec, and i’m comforta…

Yeah, but I think we need to step back a bit and think about what's working here. No one can improve in design or copywriting overnight. So she pulled a different level with brilliant self promotion that's getting real results. It makes me think I should stop tweaking the pixels on version 1,367 of my logo and look at the bigger picture. Like her, I want the work I'm doing to be noticed. In that category, she's kicking my butt, and I think I could learn a thing or two from her approach.

I don't think active applications are innovative or quirky. But I do think that they are effective (when done right) and I hope they have staying power. The resume is long overdue for a bit of reinvention. But you are absolutely right: the site must present work tailored very specifically to the company you are chasing. It has to do more than mention them by name. My biggest critique is that I think she should have put some of the effort into a proposed redesign of an instagram feature. Some piece of work that would help them imagine her contributions as an employee.

Re: I wanna work at Instagram

#168

Post by statictype »

billclerico wrote: post #10

love the initiative & hustle. dropping her a note now about our designer position

You don't mind hiring someone who clearly has her sights set on a different company? To the extent that she even registered a domain name professing her personal interest in said company?

Re: I wanna work at Instagram

#169

Post by xp84 »

postacrylic wrote: post #102

The copywriting is really awful - it makes her come across as a try-hard... She should have just put up a page with her work and the line: "I want to work at Instagram. Why should you hire me? Take a look at my work", and then post a bunch of kick-ass projects. Over-the-top copy coming from a designer always is a sign that they're trying to hide subpar quality of work.

Or that you're a designer not a copywriter. You know. One of those two things.

Re: I wanna work at Instagram

#170

Post by danwolff »

random42 wrote: post #36
pavel_lishin wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She sounds like a lady who's at least 78% unique.

You mean probability of her being unique is atleast 0.78, dont you? As being unique would be rather a binary state, either one is unique of not.

Actually, the probability is 0 or 1; she exists. Right? Stats anyone?
Post reply on HN