51–60 of 455 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not seeing why that would be a problem.
In what context is focusing ones outrage at all useful, ever? This is just reinforcing destruction, promoting group identity, enabling a mob mentality, and sometimes promotes violence. Honest critique is one thing, mob mentality outrage is not an honest critique.
However, I'm a pretty senior engineer so it may be harder for more junior roles.
I'm curious, what level was the position? The process was months long and went to a hiring committee? That sounds like a what you'd have for a faculty position or something, was this a research position?
SWE. Some of the time I needed so I could answer leet questions and system design questions on the fly. A lot of time was spent scheduling, particularly around the holidays. There were some 'bonus' rounds of interviews I took because they f'd up.
Maybe we should get a list going of scummy recruiters.
There are three models of recruiting, first-party, retained and commission. You do not want to speak to recruiters working on commission, because they take the shotgun approach and have the least information and least incentive to tell the truth. One of my first questions to third party recruiters is "are you retained or on commission" and if the second, end the conversation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not seeing why that would be a problem.
In what context is focusing ones outrage at all useful, ever? This is just reinforcing destruction, promoting group identity, enabling a mob mentality, and sometimes promotes violence. Honest critique is one thing, mob mentality outrage is not an honest critique.
Would you encourage the same policy of not naming the the accused parties with the #meToo movement? Because it's not productive or worthwhile to focus on a few individuals? And where would that movement have gotten if none of the parties involved had ever been named?
You definitely need to name the company that did this.
Why? This isn't Twitter, piling on a company doesn't add much to the discussion, it just lets people focus their outrage better
This is just another thing in a long line of scrupulous things that recruiters do. If bad actors will edit your resume before sending it in then lying about the remote nature of a job is just another part of that. Which FAANG? Name and shame.
I'm still holding on to a slight hope that the recruiter will find a hiring manager willing to override the committee and all of my time and effort will not have been wasted. They said they'd keep looking but they were probably just trying to get me off the phone. I'll put it this way. One FAANG I wouldn't work at under any circumstances. One FAANG has been very clear that they want employees on site. One FAANG has a…
Uh Amazon? I hope it's Amazon, not Facebook.
> One FAANG has been very clear that they want employees on site.
Both Netflix and Apple.
> One FAANG has a recruiting proc where you are hired once you pass the interviews, you can figure out your team later.
Google?
> One FAANG doesn't really fit in the FAANG acronym.
Amazon? Apple? Facebook because they've changed their name to Meta?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? This isn't Twitter, piling on a company doesn't add much to the discussion, it just lets people focus their outrage better
It adds the most important thing to the discussion: Which company is it, so we - the other people working in the same field, applying for the same jobs - can avoid it.
You definitely need to name the company that did this.
Why? This isn't Twitter, piling on a company doesn't add much to the discussion, it just lets people focus their outrage better
Why do you believe the company should be able to keep bad behavior secret?