Coming soon to a blog near you: "I was the perfect candidate and didn't get the offer because companies hire based on who you know and where you worked, not how

Coming soon to a blog near you: "I was the perfect candidate and didn't get the offer because companies hire based on who you know and where you worked, not how good you are." Assuming that all of this is completely accurate and not at all written by someone who's a little wonky (Honestly, heart palpitations over a fucking candidate? Dude, cool your jets, man. You are waaaaaaaaay too stressed about this.) it's still an extremely unusual situation. Anyone who uses this one--in my opinion at least partially false and possibly entirely fabricated--instance to go around giving advice about hiring has a screw loose. The takeaways are incredibly suspect. 1. Trust your gut. You know what? Fuck your gut. I don't care about your gut. Or mine. Gut instincts are more often than not a thinly veiled excuse for allowing racism, sexism, and insecurity into the hiring decision. Instead of something murky and nebulous like a gut instinct, try having a process instead. And follow it, even if it disagrees with your gut. 2. Social profile Fuck that too. Social profiles are bullshit. LinkedIn is a bullshit predictor of anything and a bullshit indicator of past performance. So is GitHub. 3. References--given or backdoor Fuck this too. References are meaningless. Don't bother. The references a candidate gives you are going to be at least neutral if not glowing. Extremely few people are dumb enough to give bad references. Backdoor references are extremely unethical. References are noise, not signal. 4. Stalk your candidates online looking for anything suspicious. Wait for it . . . . Fuck this too. If you dig deep enough, you'll find something wrong with everyone. The author says he doesn't know what would've happened if he'd gone ahead with the hire. I do. The author would've continued the neurotic and unhealthy behavior displayed in the article. He would've continued to be the kind of boss who makes decisions based on his gut regardless of anything else a situation might be calling for. He would've brought the candidate into a toxic work environment run by a person who is entirely too emotionally involved with his job. The author would probably have ended up firing the candidate and then later refused to acknowledge that he ever worked there when future companies called for references. In my opinion, every element of this article is extremely suspect. From the veracity of the facts therein to the takeaways based on them, it all smells a little . . . fishy. My main takeaway is that I should remember to never apply to work at this company. But then again, that's just my gut talking.