551–560 of 604 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a positive "they treated me like a human being" or a negative "no, they were rude" That's the whole range eh?
Yes. Anything else wouls go against the sworn secret oath that every taxi driver lives by.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And how would he know someone who was sitting in his taxi on their way to a job interview was gay?
We gay people do as a population have cultural "tells" which reveal our sexuality. To a random passerby probably not, but it doesnt take long for shibboleths to come out in a casual conversation. This actually happened in my workplace, I recognised a coworker as gay long before he told me, just from his vocabulary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Somewhat related to the anecdote you’re skeptical of: I was a law clerk for multiple years for a presiding judge and if you were a wise attorney rule #1 was be kind to the administrative staff at the courthouse - judges would find out if you were rude and while no-one was ever unethical, in my opinion, arrogant attorneys were definitely grilled more than polite ones. Kindness gets you a long way. And if you were a je…
You catch more flys with sugar than with vinegar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We gay people do as a population have cultural "tells" which reveal our sexuality. To a random passerby probably not, but it doesnt take long for shibboleths to come out in a casual conversation. This actually happened in my workplace, I recognised a coworker as gay long before he told me, just from his vocabulary.
Sure - but are these clue tells likely to come up in what the interviewee considers a chance encounter - riding in a taxi - to a job interview (thus probably dressed in an uniform way), when their mind is likely on other things? Also, wouldn't the taxi driver also have to know about these clues? With all respect, I think the scenario "Taxi driver planted/used as an interview prescreen is openly anti-gay and sniffs th…
In Robert Heinlein's early juvenile novel Space Cadet, the applicants are given a device and a set of instructions. The instructions make no sense for the device in question. Assuming this is based on something real life, I suppose it was the same underlying idea. Nobody could complete the instructions. They wanted to see what people did. How do people react to frustration and bad orders? There is plenty of frustrati…
I was reminded of Space Cadet , too. Reading that passage again (for the first time in fifty years), I see that there were at least two tests with hidden purposes. One is a simple task where the test-taker could easily cheat if he wanted to. (Our hero doesn’t.) In the next, the test-taker is asked to solve a puzzle with complex rules, and the purpose is to measure how long it takes him to figure out that there is no…
The German General Staff in the old days would have training exercises where the objectives could only be met by disobeying orders.
And the test with the magic dingus with the buttons and levers somehow reminded me of using most enterprise software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the question was about productivity of discussion.
Some discussions are serious and follow the core competency of the site (technical ones for example). For these discussions, it is best to avoid sarcasm and non-obvious forms of communication. Some discussions are not serious, and are destined not to be really productive anyway. Dating advice falls into that category. Is ignoring context like this your idea of being a "helpful contributor to discussions?" Because I d…
Then you could have said as much from the beginning.
>Is ignoring context like this your idea of being a "helpful contributor to discussions?" Because I don't see who's being helped by this.
You communicated poorly, in being (almost deliberately) unaware of what context others might lack. That error followed a pattern that others often make. I pointed out why it is an error so that you, and those others, can avoid it. And then, in doing so, I got you to reveal context your original comment needed.
Yes, I absolutely feel like I contributed here, and that you made the forum just a little bit worse with your original reply and contempt for discussion quality. Do you see why I might think that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have seen several stories like this - the janitor, or secretary, or whoever is actually a trusted individual who is the true judge of character. To me, it seems implausible, more of a "feel good" story, but it also seems ill advised. Does the driver know he's part of the loop? Does the driver attend the debrief? Does the driver distinguish between great, normal, sub-normal, and bad social skills? What portion of je…
One difference you might see is that the stories all have increased rewards for good behavior. Good behavior isn't something that's rewarded outside of childhood, it's just expected to be your default as an adult. The comments above talk about punishment for bad behavior, which happens all day every day. Nobody cares about giving the candidate a 'fair shake' because if you know and trust someone enough to listen to t…
There are plenty of "asshole filters" around https://cafebedouin.org/2019/11/10/the-asshole-filter/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The taxi driver is going to text or email HR or the hiring manager or someone? That would be indeed implausible. But not every transaction happens between undeferentiated cogs. A specific person organises the interview logistics from the company. Let’s call him Joe. When they agree with a candidate on an interview date Joe picks up the phone and calls the hotel to book a room. After that Joe calls George the truste…
Since you asked, I find a few things implausible about your story. First, taxi drivers typically work with dispatchers. They aren't scheduling their own calls or schedules - because they are busy driving. Second, in the world of "decades ago" we are pre-smartphone. How, exactly, are you going to call up the taxi driver for a chat? And don't you think the taxi driver is going to notice that he has to take a call from…
(Also it might have been a "car service" and the term taxi was being used a bit liberally there)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some discussions are serious and follow the core competency of the site (technical ones for example). For these discussions, it is best to avoid sarcasm and non-obvious forms of communication. Some discussions are not serious, and are destined not to be really productive anyway. Dating advice falls into that category. Is ignoring context like this your idea of being a "helpful contributor to discussions?" Because I d…
>Some discussions are not serious, and are destined not to be really productive anyway. Dating advice falls into that category. Then you could have said as much from the beginning. >Is ignoring context like this your idea of being a "helpful contributor to discussions?" Because I don't see who's being helped by this. You communicated poorly, in being (almost deliberately) unaware of what context others might lack. Th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't think it's ethical to evaluate a candidate's interactions when they weren't informed they were being evaluated. That makes about as much sense as saying that you shouldn’t be held responsible for stealing office supplies because no one informed you that there were cameras installed. If you treat cab drivers and other service personnel badly, that’s because you’re a shit person. It’s really that simple. I’ve…
If you cheat on your partner you are also a "shit person". Do you think employers should reject candidates if they know they cheated on a romantic relationship?