4 ms·

The no explanation is the worst part for anything like this. Impossible to determine what to do or what reason they had, just denied. It's not just the governme

The no explanation is the worst part for anything like this. Impossible to determine what to do or what reason they had, just denied. It's not just the government either, look at how some tech companies have a policy of providing no explanation for interview rejections too. It's a lack of respect for anyone but oneself.

nothrabannosir 9y ago
> no explanation for interview rejections too. It's a lack of respect for anyone but oneself. Nothing personal Ajeet, but: for the love of God, can this trope please die? It has been widely, extensively, repeatedly, incessantly established every single time this comes up: they do it because of the unreasonably high risk of being sued. If the cards are stacked against you, the wisest move is not to play. This has nothing to do with respect. It is the logical move in an unfair game. Otherwise I agree with your post. Even that the frustration must feel similar to silent job interview rejection. I'm just getting tired of seeing this "no respect" point over and over and over and over here. My eyes are bleeding. Sorry for the expletive.
- ajeet_dhaliwal 9y ago
  Not personal at all, I don't for the most part need to participate in the 'game' anymore thankfully, but I still think in specific situations, perhaps a junior dev failing a technical white board interview, if they ask for feedback it should be given, otherwise they have no way of knowing what went wrong or how to improve. It takes five minutes. Being afraid of being sued is a lame excuse. I know 15 years ago it would have accelerated my career, nowadays it doesn't matter. Don't you think Daniel Stenberg should have a way of determining on what grounds he was denied and what he can do about it?
  - nothrabannosir 9y ago
    Yes for Daniel, no for companies. Either we protect them (at least slightly) more from lawsuits, OR we accept their silence. I honestly don't mind which. But it's one or the other. We make the rules, as people.
- laumars 9y ago
  Your rebuttal isn't mutually exclusive.
GuB-42 9y ago
There are some privacy and national security reasons for this too. The reason for this refusal may come from very personal reasons. Maybe an intelligence agency discovered that he had sex with the wrong person or something like that. It is not a bad thing if the border control guy doesn't know. The national security reasons may be if he is tied to some suspicious activity. He may not be part of it but the risks are considered too high to let him in, and you don't want to reveal classified information. In fact, there is no need to know ("need to know" is an important aspect of secrecy). The decision is "no" and the reason won't change it.
- throw2016 9y ago
  The word Kafkaesque comes to mind. I get the feeling Franz Kafka would have a problem with you.

nothrabannosir 9y ago

> no explanation for interview rejections too. It's a lack of respect for anyone but oneself. Nothing personal Ajeet, but: for the love of God, can this trope please die? It has been widely, extensively, repeatedly, incessantly established every single time this comes up: they do it because of the unreasonably high risk of being sued. If the cards are stacked against you, the wisest move is not to play. This has nothing to do with respect. It is the logical move in an unfair game. Otherwise I agree with your post. Even that the frustration must feel similar to silent job interview rejection. I'm just getting tired of seeing this "no respect" point over and over and over and over here. My eyes are bleeding. Sorry for the expletive.

ajeet_dhaliwal 9y ago
Not personal at all, I don't for the most part need to participate in the 'game' anymore thankfully, but I still think in specific situations, perhaps a junior dev failing a technical white board interview, if they ask for feedback it should be given, otherwise they have no way of knowing what went wrong or how to improve. It takes five minutes. Being afraid of being sued is a lame excuse. I know 15 years ago it would have accelerated my career, nowadays it doesn't matter. Don't you think Daniel Stenberg should have a way of determining on what grounds he was denied and what he can do about it?
- nothrabannosir 9y ago
  Yes for Daniel, no for companies. Either we protect them (at least slightly) more from lawsuits, OR we accept their silence. I honestly don't mind which. But it's one or the other. We make the rules, as people.
laumars 9y ago
Your rebuttal isn't mutually exclusive.

GuB-42 9y ago

There are some privacy and national security reasons for this too. The reason for this refusal may come from very personal reasons. Maybe an intelligence agency discovered that he had sex with the wrong person or something like that. It is not a bad thing if the border control guy doesn't know. The national security reasons may be if he is tied to some suspicious activity. He may not be part of it but the risks are considered too high to let him in, and you don't want to reveal classified information. In fact, there is no need to know ("need to know" is an important aspect of secrecy). The decision is "no" and the reason won't change it.

throw2016 9y ago
The word Kafkaesque comes to mind. I get the feeling Franz Kafka would have a problem with you.