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

The Resume Is Dead

chicagosean.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–38 of 38 posts

Re: The Resume Is Dead

#31

Post by stcredzero »

burgerbrain wrote: post #19
stcredzero wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It's not effectively a zero-sum game until you near saturation. Before that point, the dynamics are the same as for an infinite resource. How's about a game of poker with grains of sand as chips? Second, you already admitted that the amount of attention can grow. There's only a finite amount of wealth represented in the balance sheets of everyone alive on the planet right…

A finite number is always finite, even if it's so large that you can't comprehend it in normal human terms. Oh, and arguably the amount of fame there is to be had is nowhere near unfathomable. I can list off the top of my head probably hundreds of "famous people", and I don't give a shit about celebrity. The only limit there is my memory, not a lack of famous people to think about. Our culture is absolutely packed wi…

A finite number is always finite, even if it's so large that you can't comprehend it in normal human terms.

You apparently misunderstood the point I made in the gp post. That has almost nothing to do with my argument. So, you are saying that any game where the scores at any moment are finite numbers is a zero-sum game.

Various economic activities are subject to many iterations across time.

"no one claims wealth is a Zero Sum Game"

Objectively wrong.

Okay, not enough words for the slightly uninformed to understand. There are people historically who have put forth theories based on the idea that globally wealth is zero-sum. I don't think anyone in economics takes them seriously any more.

Our culture is absolutely packed with famous people, it's pretty clearly saturated.

The >cultureExercise for the less than completely clued -- where in the previous discussion did I frame the relevant context of notoriety. Locate that, and reframe your arguent in that context. Then I might consider this intellectually worthwhile. As it is, I keep on having to explain things to someone who half-understands arguments.

Re: The Resume Is Dead

#32

Post by wglb »

PostOnce wrote: post #3

Contacts have always trumped resumes. "It's not what you know, but who you know."

Actually, I think it is better said "It is who knows you".

Many have thought that the best way to get somebody to know you is through a resume. Really, the best way is through contacts. In my long career, I have had three "starting points" where I got a job without using my contacts network. And that was without really being conscious about it.

If you are in the programming profession (don't know about trading) then today's best way is to put up a web site with a project that you are building. Show your stuff.

(I can't believe how far off the rails this whole discussion has gone. And we aren't even to the "cover letters are more important that resumes" discussion.)

Re: The Resume Is Dead

#33

Post by gaius »

estel wrote: post #30
burgerbrain wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The implication of your comment being that feeling superior is somehow wrong?

Pretty much. Of all the excuses people make to judge themselves superior and better than others, profession must surely be one of the most asinine.

Any working engineer, at a company that's hiring will tell you that HR can't actually tell a good CV from a bad one.

Re: The Resume Is Dead

#34

Post by noarchy »

gaius wrote: post #33
estel wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much. Of all the excuses people make to judge themselves superior and better than others, profession must surely be one of the most asinine.

Any working engineer, at a company that's hiring will tell you that HR can't actually tell a good CV from a bad one.

They also can't write a job posting, even though they seem to be tasked often with doing so.

Re: The Resume Is Dead

#35

Post by stcredzero »

codexon wrote: post #17
stcredzero wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It's not effectively a zero-sum game until you near saturation. Before that point, the dynamics are the same as for an infinite resource. How's about a game of poker with grains of sand as chips? Second, you already admitted that the amount of attention can grow. There's only a finite amount of wealth represented in the balance sheets of everyone alive on the planet right…

There are babies born every minute but the number of famous people an average person cares to remember remains relatively constant.

[Citation Needed]

Actually, this says nothing. Context matters greatly. Who cares if the issue is getting hired for a geology job in Houston, but the population of Bollywood stars is exploding?

Re: The Resume Is Dead

#36

Post by stcredzero »

randallsquared wrote: post #12
stcredzero wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the advice boils down to "be famous"? I don't think that's fair. Why is "be famous" a better decoding than "be awesome?" Are you seriously telling me that you know of no one who, while they don't have celebrity status, isn't known in your community or subfield as someone awesome? there's a finite amount of fame out there: it's a zero sum game. I'm calling bullsh#t on this one. How in the world can you justify ther…

In 2011, there are a finite number of people whose attention a person could have. Each of those people has a finite number of seconds of attention to devote. Wealth cannot yet increase that number, though it can enable you to devote attention to other things. Fame and status are not like wealth; they are zero sum.

In 2011, there are a finite number of people, corporations, and sovereign entities which can be said to own wealth. Wach of those has a finite total number associated with their various bank accounts.

Yet no one who is still taken seriously says wealth is zero sum.

If your point is holds true, and we are at saturation for attention, then if radio contact was made with an alien probe tomorrow, the amount of attention people are paying to the news would not change, but merely more of it would be devoted to your discovery.

That's crap -- the overall amount of attention people are paying to news would actually increase. Other stories would indeed be overshadowed (hence your confusion in thinking attention is zero-sum) but the total amount of attention would not be constant. Instead, it would crest like flood-level waters moving downriver.

The total amount of attention being paid to news is not constant.

Re: The Resume Is Dead

#37

Post by stcredzero »

sliverstorm wrote: post #23
ErrantX wrote: post #4

If you put this kind of effort in, opportunities will come to you. People will recognize you and your work. Your well earned reputation will precede you before you even walk in the door. sigh This works for high flying traders, it works for rockstar coders, or people applying at "indie" companies (i.e. ones with renegade hiring styles). And so on. And, typically, someone in that high flying arena misconstrues what he…

Seriously. If the only way to get hired is to be in the top X% (for X We can't all be famous superhero rockstar coders. That said, this is a viable strategy for getting a job- it just isn't grounds to declare resumes gone and buried, because it's impossible for everyone to secure their job this way.

Doing a good job and having a good reputation are not just for rockstars. I doubt this will ever go out of style.

The CV? The CV will always be around, just as many cultural artifacts remain, despite their obsolete functionality.

Re: The Resume Is Dead

#38

Post by randallsquared »

stcredzero wrote: post #36
randallsquared wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2011, there are a finite number of people whose attention a person could have. Each of those people has a finite number of seconds of attention to devote. Wealth cannot yet increase that number, though it can enable you to devote attention to other things. Fame and status are not like wealth; they are zero sum.

In 2011, there are a finite number of people, corporations, and sovereign entities which can be said to own wealth. Wach of those has a finite total number associated with their various bank accounts. Yet no one who is still taken seriously says wealth is zero sum. If your point is holds true, and we are at saturation for attention, then if radio contact was made with an alien probe tomorrow, the amount of attention…

The total amount of attention being paid to news is not constant.

This is an interesting rhetorical trick: present a slice of the pie as the entire pie, so that when the size of that slice grows, you can claim that the pie was actually infinite to begin with! Nice.

The difference between wealth and attention (as your carefully selected example shows that you actually already know...) is that you can create wealth without taking decreasing anyone else's wealth. Three people on a desert island can become wealthier all at once. However, there are only a certain number of things anyone can "pay attention to" at once, because paying attention to something necessarily means decreasing attention to something else.

the total amount of attention would not be constant.

If you limit yourself only to the slice of total attention you have called "news", then you'd be right. But most of the time I'm paying attention to things other than news. Some of those other things include celebrities, even.

hence your confusion

I believe you misspelled "conclusion", here. :) Confusion only arises if you start from the assumption that attention paid to online games, programming, blogs, texting someone, getting a drink, or going for a drive, isn't attention at all, because it's not narrowly focused on news.

Post reply on HN