4 ms·

The point you're missing is that both rejections are meaningless to tell people about. Recruiters are so unpicky with who they send emails or linkedin messages

The point you're missing is that both rejections are meaningless to tell people about. Recruiters are so unpicky with who they send emails or linkedin messages to, that it is equivalent in social meaning to a rejection on a swipe dating app. The offer has little to do with who you are, and represent a generalized offer of pursuit, a very wide and impersonal net. Additionally, the classic "I almost dated a celebrity" is such a cliche and something people instantly brush off as meaningless, just like the amazon recruiter emailing you. The analogy is 100% on point in regards to the social significance of the interaction, there being none.

Volundr 4y ago
The point your missing is the email was never the point of the comment, it was the fact that Amazon's practices have turned them off from Amazon. The recruiter email was just building a context that many of us can relate to. You've picked the least relevant portion of the comment to focus on. Again, "I won't work at X because Y" in a conversation about X doing Y is pretty clearly on-topic.
- operatingthetan 4y ago
  They bragged about rejecting amazon. Whether it was about Amazon's practices or the pride of rejection they are both "drive by shooting" level comments and are annoying. Suggesting one is more on topic or interesting is inane because they are both surface-level expressions with zero insight. You're literally holding a up a comment that doesn't even reference the practice they didn't like as "on topic." Is it because they are going back to the office, because they changed their mind, because it's 3 days a week, because the communication was an email? Who knows. There's no there there. It's a garden variety expression of dislike.
  - Volundr 4y ago
    They didn't brag about anything. They said they didn't reply to an e-mail. If this sounds boastful to you, it's baggage you brought. Between the article and the comment, there's more than enough context to infer that the reason they didn't reply is they predicted the heel turn on remote work. If comments relying on reader inference instead of fully specifying context is an issue, you don't have time to chat with me, there's TONS of other comments you need to address.
    - operatingthetan 4y ago
      You suggested the comment was both insightful and on-topic, while at the same time requiring context to interpret. That's enough of this pedantic nonsense for me boss. It's obvious you are digging into meaningless topics for the purposes of trolling.
      - Volundr 4y ago
        > You suggested the comment What comment? (Requires context) > both insightful and on-topic? Both? (Requires context, which you may want to re-examine.) > while at the same time requiring context to interpret. How is this in conflict with being insightful and on-topic? (Requires inference) You failed to meet your own bar, which isn't surprising. Yes, pretty much all of human conversation requires context and inference. That's not "pedantic nonsense". > It's obvious you are digging into meaningless topics for the purposes of trolling. I'm not the one defending a comment that boils down to "yeah well, you have no idea how recruiting works and probably aren't good enough for Amazon anyway". My position in this thread boils down to two things: 1) The original comment was a pretty banal and run of the mill comment that did not call for belittling the commenters worldliness or skill set. At worst it called for a down-vote. 2) Comparing working at Amazon to dating an A-list celebrity is a poor analogy for reasons including but not limited to: * Actions taken by the celebrity vs Amazon * The differences in exclusivity of the two * The clear paths available to working at Amazon vs dating the celebrity * The number of users in the forum known to do one vs the other.
        operatingthetan 4y ago
        If someone says they are done, take the hint.
        Volundr 4y ago
        Ah yes of course "I'm going to cast aspersions on you and your intentions by calling you a mindless troll. Don't bother replying, I'm done discussing it." If you want to be done, be done. I didn't drag you back here. HN doesn't even notify on replies. All you have to do is not check the thread. But I'm under no obligation to leave your parting insult unchallenged.

Volundr 4y ago

The point your missing is the email was never the point of the comment, it was the fact that Amazon's practices have turned them off from Amazon. The recruiter email was just building a context that many of us can relate to. You've picked the least relevant portion of the comment to focus on. Again, "I won't work at X because Y" in a conversation about X doing Y is pretty clearly on-topic.

operatingthetan 4y ago
They bragged about rejecting amazon. Whether it was about Amazon's practices or the pride of rejection they are both "drive by shooting" level comments and are annoying. Suggesting one is more on topic or interesting is inane because they are both surface-level expressions with zero insight. You're literally holding a up a comment that doesn't even reference the practice they didn't like as "on topic." Is it because they are going back to the office, because they changed their mind, because it's 3 days a week, because the communication was an email? Who knows. There's no there there. It's a garden variety expression of dislike.
- Volundr 4y ago
  They didn't brag about anything. They said they didn't reply to an e-mail. If this sounds boastful to you, it's baggage you brought. Between the article and the comment, there's more than enough context to infer that the reason they didn't reply is they predicted the heel turn on remote work. If comments relying on reader inference instead of fully specifying context is an issue, you don't have time to chat with me, there's TONS of other comments you need to address.
  - operatingthetan 4y ago
    You suggested the comment was both insightful and on-topic, while at the same time requiring context to interpret. That's enough of this pedantic nonsense for me boss. It's obvious you are digging into meaningless topics for the purposes of trolling.
    - Volundr 4y ago
      > You suggested the comment What comment? (Requires context) > both insightful and on-topic? Both? (Requires context, which you may want to re-examine.) > while at the same time requiring context to interpret. How is this in conflict with being insightful and on-topic? (Requires inference) You failed to meet your own bar, which isn't surprising. Yes, pretty much all of human conversation requires context and inference. That's not "pedantic nonsense". > It's obvious you are digging into meaningless topics for the purposes of trolling. I'm not the one defending a comment that boils down to "yeah well, you have no idea how recruiting works and probably aren't good enough for Amazon anyway". My position in this thread boils down to two things: 1) The original comment was a pretty banal and run of the mill comment that did not call for belittling the commenters worldliness or skill set. At worst it called for a down-vote. 2) Comparing working at Amazon to dating an A-list celebrity is a poor analogy for reasons including but not limited to: * Actions taken by the celebrity vs Amazon * The differences in exclusivity of the two * The clear paths available to working at Amazon vs dating the celebrity * The number of users in the forum known to do one vs the other.
      - operatingthetan 4y ago
        If someone says they are done, take the hint.
        Volundr 4y ago
        Ah yes of course "I'm going to cast aspersions on you and your intentions by calling you a mindless troll. Don't bother replying, I'm done discussing it." If you want to be done, be done. I didn't drag you back here. HN doesn't even notify on replies. All you have to do is not check the thread. But I'm under no obligation to leave your parting insult unchallenged.