4 ms·
Nearly every comment so far is reacting to this line: > I had been talking to the candidate for months.. and how appalling that is. But TFA says nothing about
by fenomas 2y ago
Nearly every comment so far is reacting to this line:
> I had been talking to the candidate for months..
and how appalling that is. But TFA says nothing about why the process took months, because that's not what the article is about. Maybe the author had been talking to the candidate for some time before the hiring process started? Maybe the process took unusually long for reasons on the candidate's side? We have no idea, so why even take issue with it?
- christianqchung 2y agoBecause it's insane? It makes the rest of the post uninteresting by comparison.
- fenomas 2y agoIt's insane if the facts are what you're imagining - the company strung the candidate along for months for no reason. If the facts are something different, like the process took months because the candidate kept rescheduling, then it's not insane at all. TFA gives no details either way - hence, the thing you're calling insane is something you've imagined, not something described in TFA. That's my point.