21–30 of 40 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an interviewer I wouldn’t look on that badly either. The job market nosedived. Simple as that so it’s not inconceivable that many talented people have been out of work for a long time.
Companies don't fire talented people. They fire those, who, during the good times were just barely adequate for the job they did, and in the bad times they became liability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an interviewer I wouldn’t look on that badly either. The job market nosedived. Simple as that so it’s not inconceivable that many talented people have been out of work for a long time.
Companies don't fire talented people. They fire those, who, during the good times were just barely adequate for the job they did, and in the bad times they became liability.
The codicil is that I'm not sure you can separate someone's productivity from their fit in that role, with the given management and stage of the company.
What suggestions do you have for someone who may have been laid off months ago and is now facing the stigma of, let's just say "less than short term unemployment?" Those people often don't even make it to your phone screen.
As an interviewer I wouldn’t look on that badly either. The job market nosedived. Simple as that so it’s not inconceivable that many talented people have been out of work for a long time.
Because for decades we've been systematically rejected and unable to apply our gifts due to momentary misunderstandings at interviews that just crush our lives like anvils again and again. If someone has enough to pay me enough to afford rent and expenses like internet / water / power andlemme know what I need to learn on top of all I already know and I'll deliver.
It's difficult to not act desperate when you actually are in a somewhat desperate situation (for example it's x weeks/months until you won't be able to pay your bills).
It's all a cruel real shithorrorshow rapejape
As the interviewer, if a candidate goes on and on about something irrelevant, note that, interrupt them, and move on.
You're recognizing that these candidates are in a difficult situation, but you're not taking any steps yourself to support them.
> People who have been laid off talk at me so much more than other candidates. Because for decades we've been systematically rejected and unable to apply our gifts due to momentary misunderstandings at interviews that just crush our lives like anvils again and again. If someone has enough to pay me enough to afford rent and expenses like internet / water / power andlemme know what I need to learn on top of all I alre…
You know an interview goes both ways, right? As the interviewer, if a candidate goes on and on about something irrelevant, note that, interrupt them, and move on. You're recognizing that these candidates are in a difficult situation, but you're not taking any steps yourself to support them.
What suggestions do you have for someone who may have been laid off months ago and is now facing the stigma of, let's just say "less than short term unemployment?" Those people often don't even make it to your phone screen.
You can also make some open source contributions to show you are still gaining skills even if not getting paid.
It is your job to hire the best candidate, hire the most qualified, not the best at selling himself. Remember the Dunning–Kruger effect. We are surrounded by confident and wrong people.
Confident and wrong people are the ones who will try their ideas out and get it right eventually. Those who are not confident will keep passive learning and planning and get stuck in self-doubt, and hate others for succeeding by just doing things "wrongly".
I think there's a meta DK effect in light of DK effect: those who learn about DK effect and think that it is favorable to them are the ones to whom it doesn't apply favorably to.