4 ms·

> The author is revealing lots of information about the company's infrastructure, given to him in an interview That info should be public by design anyway.

hnarn 4y ago
That's not the point. Of course any information given to a candidate in an interview should not be privileged -- the point is that the fact that this is how things "should be" does not mean that it's an implicit agreement to share the information you get with the general public. This should be obvious to anyone.
- a4isms 4y ago
  I’ve been hiring programmers for three decades. What is obvious to me is that we play a game where there is a posted set of rules such as “Don’t talk shit about the companies that interview you and definitely don’t reveal what they told you in an interview.” We punish people for breaking these rules. But also, insiders break these rules all the time, quietly, either in “whisper networks,” or on web sites launched by startups that give people a way to post what questions companies ask when hiring, what biases various interviewers have, and so forth. What we’re punishing this person for when talking about their “oversharing” is not being enough of an insider to know the right way to play the hidden game.
- ghaff 4y ago
  A lot of things that go on within companies are not some deep dark trade secret that you're violating some confidence by talking about with friends. However, if I were on an interview committee, and saw a blog post sharing the blow by blow complete with names of the people involved, I'd consider it at least rather weird. I certainly wouldn't have consented to having my name made public in that way.
arnvald 4y ago
Possibly, but I don't think it's up to the post author to decide.
exitb 4y ago
It highlights the tendency to overshare, thus hurts his future job prospects. Employers are typically hoping their employees don't play journalists, publicly writing a story about the company on the side.

hnarn 4y ago

That's not the point. Of course any information given to a candidate in an interview should not be privileged -- the point is that the fact that this is how things "should be" does not mean that it's an implicit agreement to share the information you get with the general public. This should be obvious to anyone.

a4isms 4y ago
I’ve been hiring programmers for three decades. What is obvious to me is that we play a game where there is a posted set of rules such as “Don’t talk shit about the companies that interview you and definitely don’t reveal what they told you in an interview.” We punish people for breaking these rules. But also, insiders break these rules all the time, quietly, either in “whisper networks,” or on web sites launched by startups that give people a way to post what questions companies ask when hiring, what biases various interviewers have, and so forth. What we’re punishing this person for when talking about their “oversharing” is not being enough of an insider to know the right way to play the hidden game.
ghaff 4y ago
A lot of things that go on within companies are not some deep dark trade secret that you're violating some confidence by talking about with friends. However, if I were on an interview committee, and saw a blog post sharing the blow by blow complete with names of the people involved, I'd consider it at least rather weird. I certainly wouldn't have consented to having my name made public in that way.

arnvald 4y ago

Possibly, but I don't think it's up to the post author to decide.

exitb 4y ago

It highlights the tendency to overshare, thus hurts his future job prospects. Employers are typically hoping their employees don't play journalists, publicly writing a story about the company on the side.