3 ms·

> You could only screen who applied, and the job posting inaccurately described the language(s) used. How could that not have an effect on the applicant pool, a

by kodah 4y ago

> You could only screen who applied, and the job posting inaccurately described the language(s) used. How could that not have an effect on the applicant pool, and how the applicants approached the application? This is reaching imo. Most of the candidates never even got to a point where we were talking that deeply about the languages we worked on primarily. Second to that, candidates were allowed to pick whatever language they wanted for the interviews. > Banking and financial services? Hmm... This is a really odd take. We didn't do banking and we're heavily regulated. Additionally, it was a security product development team. Anyway, this line of conversation from you has been mostly unenjoyable and unhelpful.

lapcat 4y ago
> Anyway, this line of conversation from you has been mostly unenjoyable and unhelpful. I would imagine, because you seem to be missing the point at every level. The larger point is that when I talk about "the biggest liars and cheats rise to the top", I'm not referring to something like your software development team, which is nowhere near the top. Another point is that people who are nowhere near the top are mostly just reacting to the perverse incentives created by a system designed by the biggest liars and cheats at the top, a system that naturally tends to reward people like them. The less powerful have little choice but to operate within that system and deal with it as it is, flawed as it may be. A small point is that when you talk about "the candidates", these are already the self-selected result of an inaccurate job posting, and thus what you do after you start talking to them doesn't make up for the false impression that was given before you talked to them. > we're heavily regulated So?
- kodah 4y ago
  I'm not missing the point, I understood what you were saying and I flat out told you that the job listing was accurate. You just seemingly ignore that and go on babbling about your own idea of how our hiring process worked. It's like you live in a different dimension. Maybe take the portal back or something.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > I flat out told you that the job listing was accurate. You flat out told me that the job listing was inaccurate: > I would say that our listing was accurate other than the fact that we actually worked in 4-5 major languages, not just the one advertised. "accurate other than" is a euphemism for inaccurate. Anyway, you're still missing the point, which is that it's irrelevant whether your company's specific job posting is accurate, because job postings in general are inaccurate, with exaggerated requirements, causing job applicants to behave accordingly, which is to largely ignore the specific requirements listed in job postings and also exaggerate their own qualifications. And then companies scratch their heads densely and wonder why, somehow ignorant of the perverse incentives the industry has already created.
    - kodah 4y ago
      It didn't list every language we work in. Working in all of them wasn't even a requirement for the job, so no, it's not inaccurate. I personally would have put that on there, but it's not substantive to the outcome and as I stated earlier I usually found out people lied before we even talked about all the other languages that engineers could work in. The rest of your post is just rambling. That's not why people lie, and there's a big difference between exaggeration and outright lying. You seem to have zero delineation in your head between this, which is frankly unsurprising given the interactions I've had with you here.
      - lapcat 4y ago
        Me: "the biggest liars and cheats rise to the top" You: "When I was in charge of hiring I dealt with this every day. A huge swath of software engineers lie about their skills, involvement in projects, and just general accomplishments." Also you: "Contrast that with someone having Kubernetes all over their resume only to find out they've pushed a button on an automated deploy pipeline and don't know the difference between a Deployment and a StatefulSet. The latter I consider a lie." You later: "there's a big difference between exaggeration and outright lying. You seem to have zero delineation in your head between this"

by kodah 4y ago

lapcat 4y ago

> Anyway, this line of conversation from you has been mostly unenjoyable and unhelpful. I would imagine, because you seem to be missing the point at every level. The larger point is that when I talk about "the biggest liars and cheats rise to the top", I'm not referring to something like your software development team, which is nowhere near the top. Another point is that people who are nowhere near the top are mostly just reacting to the perverse incentives created by a system designed by the biggest liars and cheats at the top, a system that naturally tends to reward people like them. The less powerful have little choice but to operate within that system and deal with it as it is, flawed as it may be. A small point is that when you talk about "the candidates", these are already the self-selected result of an inaccurate job posting, and thus what you do after you start talking to them doesn't make up for the false impression that was given before you talked to them. > we're heavily regulated So?

kodah 4y ago
I'm not missing the point, I understood what you were saying and I flat out told you that the job listing was accurate. You just seemingly ignore that and go on babbling about your own idea of how our hiring process worked. It's like you live in a different dimension. Maybe take the portal back or something.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > I flat out told you that the job listing was accurate. You flat out told me that the job listing was inaccurate: > I would say that our listing was accurate other than the fact that we actually worked in 4-5 major languages, not just the one advertised. "accurate other than" is a euphemism for inaccurate. Anyway, you're still missing the point, which is that it's irrelevant whether your company's specific job posting is accurate, because job postings in general are inaccurate, with exaggerated requirements, causing job applicants to behave accordingly, which is to largely ignore the specific requirements listed in job postings and also exaggerate their own qualifications. And then companies scratch their heads densely and wonder why, somehow ignorant of the perverse incentives the industry has already created.
  - kodah 4y ago
    It didn't list every language we work in. Working in all of them wasn't even a requirement for the job, so no, it's not inaccurate. I personally would have put that on there, but it's not substantive to the outcome and as I stated earlier I usually found out people lied before we even talked about all the other languages that engineers could work in. The rest of your post is just rambling. That's not why people lie, and there's a big difference between exaggeration and outright lying. You seem to have zero delineation in your head between this, which is frankly unsurprising given the interactions I've had with you here.
    - lapcat 4y ago
      Me: "the biggest liars and cheats rise to the top" You: "When I was in charge of hiring I dealt with this every day. A huge swath of software engineers lie about their skills, involvement in projects, and just general accomplishments." Also you: "Contrast that with someone having Kubernetes all over their resume only to find out they've pushed a button on an automated deploy pipeline and don't know the difference between a Deployment and a StatefulSet. The latter I consider a lie." You later: "there's a big difference between exaggeration and outright lying. You seem to have zero delineation in your head between this"