I find it funny that the "bad tech profiles" highlighted read just like the "good tech profiles" - the "good" one is as nebulous as second "bad" one And the fi

I find it funny that the "bad tech profiles" highlighted read just like the "good tech profiles" - the "good" one is as nebulous as second "bad" one And the first "bad" one, which the author complains is too specific (because "person reading it has no clue what it means. Just say you can build frontend or backend or train ML models etc") is just about the best profile listed in the whole article Also: do not broad-brush insult readers of others' profiles - you have absolutely no idea what the other person understands when they read something: the "person reading it has no clue what it means" ... really? You know that when I mention specific technologies and work areas someone else does not know what they are!? Even if they do not know what the specifics are (maybe you have never heard of ELK Stack), that categories in which those tools have been leveraged are also listed means that either a) context clues will tell me what I need to know, b) I can do a quick search to find out what they are, or c) I can move on quickly because your areas of applied technical know-how do not [seem to] fit what I want to do These profiles ought to be like the Summary of a good resume - give a quick-enough sketch of your interests and experiences to be able to give reasonable clues as to your relative fit for a new role