4 ms·
Letting them both in the same room at the same time was probably the safer thing. Maybe there’s an argument, or maybe one bounces, clearing it up. But having o
by travisjungroth 4y ago
Letting them both in the same room at the same time was probably the safer thing. Maybe there’s an argument, or maybe one bounces, clearing it up.
But having one person hide is riskier. It means a random person could eaves drop on my interview by just pretending to me and telling this story.
I mean, super cool though. I imagine my adrenaline would be going as the interviewer. I’d probably chill out when I realized this was identity theft with extra steps, not a Kyle Reese situation.
- comboy 4y agoImagine inventing all of this just to listen to your interview. Incentive to do that would have to be pretty wild.
- travisjungroth 4y agoStalkers gonna stalk. The “all of this” would just have to be getting the interview link/time (calendar or email access) and then showing up a bit early to tell the story. It is very very unlikely and I don’t judge the interviewer for how they handled it.
- axus 4y agoDefinitely a Jerry Springer moment when he "could not stand this anymore" and jumped back into the conversation.
- Thorrez 4y ago>It means a random person could eaves drop on my interview by just pretending to me and telling this story. Only if the random person somehow found out the meeting code.