4 ms·

> The article drips with anger and cynicism, and hints at a few bitter opinions like "...companies I had ideological issues around..." To be fair, I did litera

> The article drips with anger and cynicism, and hints at a few bitter opinions like "...companies I had ideological issues around..." To be fair, I did literally have ideological issues with them -- such as the amount they track their users, their stance towards China, their use of patents, or just generally bad reputation in the industry -- there's a bunch of issues I feel strongly about and that prevents me from working with a lot of different companies. I guess that's a bit of a luxury, isn't it? But that's also my choice. I'm not exactly homeless these days, so I still manage to find great people to work with. I am pretty cynical and stubborn... not sure about angry, as you say, "I'm winning at life". > I just don't want to work with difficult, unhappy people. Me neither!

ysavir 6y ago
Are you really unemployable if you aren't fitting in with companies with which you would be a bad fit? Sounds more like an issue with your application choices than your employability.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- gpvos 6y ago
  They were invitations he received, not applications that he initiated himself.
  - ysavir 6y ago
    That invites even more inquiry. So the author waited for people to come to them, and when nothing worked out, declared themself "unemployable" (despite not proactively looking for work). I get that people can hit hard places, and that the author was in such a place. But I don't think the perspective given is an objective one, especially considering the author has had time for hindsight to settle in. According to the blog post, they didn't proactively apply at companies they were interested in. They didn't bother catching up on new technologies or other skills sought after in the current market, spending their time on building a computer game instead. Interviewers are being vilified for acting in their own best interests rather than the author's conveniences. They then finish up by becoming a digital nomad working 20 hour weeks and building up their savings and loving life. Where are the details that went into making that lifestyle work? Was it not due to being employable? It's hard to sympathize with the author when the narrative is essentially "I put very little effort into getting hired and so had to work a little harder to get a job".
    - dave_sullivan 6y ago
      Hello, I am the author. > So the author waited for people to come to them, and when nothing worked out, declared themself "unemployable" (despite not proactively looking for work). There are two sections. There is the part where people reached out to me. Then there is the part where I went out and interviewed more proactively. And there is a lot of stuff in between that doesn't really fit into this blog post. So consider my version a simpler, abbreviated version than real life. > According to the blog post, they didn't proactively apply at companies they were interested in. I did apply at companies I was interested in. Why wouldn't I? > They didn't bother catching up on new technologies or other skills sought after in the current market, spending their time on building a computer game instead. So, I had just come off 5 years deeply immersed in the bleeding edge of deep learning and the beginnings of the wider application of this technology at various companies. Excuse me for wanting to try something different. Have you ever made a game before? Do you have any idea how technically involved it is? How does this not count as catching up on new technologies or other skills? I should have studied leet code interviews instead? I think I'd rather enjoy life and pursue things I find interesting. > Interviewers are being vilified for acting in their own best interests rather than the author's conveniences. No, they are being vilified for focusing on arbitrary things rather than focusing on things that are important to the actual job. > It's hard to sympathize with the author when the narrative is essentially "I put very little effort into getting hired and so had to work a little harder to get a job". I'm not looking for your sympathy and I don't know what part of my life story seems low effort to you.

ysavir 6y ago

Are you really unemployable if you aren't fitting in with companies with which you would be a bad fit? Sounds more like an issue with your application choices than your employability.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
gpvos 6y ago
They were invitations he received, not applications that he initiated himself.
- ysavir 6y ago
  That invites even more inquiry. So the author waited for people to come to them, and when nothing worked out, declared themself "unemployable" (despite not proactively looking for work). I get that people can hit hard places, and that the author was in such a place. But I don't think the perspective given is an objective one, especially considering the author has had time for hindsight to settle in. According to the blog post, they didn't proactively apply at companies they were interested in. They didn't bother catching up on new technologies or other skills sought after in the current market, spending their time on building a computer game instead. Interviewers are being vilified for acting in their own best interests rather than the author's conveniences. They then finish up by becoming a digital nomad working 20 hour weeks and building up their savings and loving life. Where are the details that went into making that lifestyle work? Was it not due to being employable? It's hard to sympathize with the author when the narrative is essentially "I put very little effort into getting hired and so had to work a little harder to get a job".
  - dave_sullivan 6y ago
    Hello, I am the author. > So the author waited for people to come to them, and when nothing worked out, declared themself "unemployable" (despite not proactively looking for work). There are two sections. There is the part where people reached out to me. Then there is the part where I went out and interviewed more proactively. And there is a lot of stuff in between that doesn't really fit into this blog post. So consider my version a simpler, abbreviated version than real life. > According to the blog post, they didn't proactively apply at companies they were interested in. I did apply at companies I was interested in. Why wouldn't I? > They didn't bother catching up on new technologies or other skills sought after in the current market, spending their time on building a computer game instead. So, I had just come off 5 years deeply immersed in the bleeding edge of deep learning and the beginnings of the wider application of this technology at various companies. Excuse me for wanting to try something different. Have you ever made a game before? Do you have any idea how technically involved it is? How does this not count as catching up on new technologies or other skills? I should have studied leet code interviews instead? I think I'd rather enjoy life and pursue things I find interesting. > Interviewers are being vilified for acting in their own best interests rather than the author's conveniences. No, they are being vilified for focusing on arbitrary things rather than focusing on things that are important to the actual job. > It's hard to sympathize with the author when the narrative is essentially "I put very little effort into getting hired and so had to work a little harder to get a job". I'm not looking for your sympathy and I don't know what part of my life story seems low effort to you.