3 ms·

Only if you think that an uninformed philosophical rant is any sort of answer to a recruiter whose job consists of getting you to interview for her/his employer

by capo 14y ago

Only if you think that an uninformed philosophical rant is any sort of answer to a recruiter whose job consists of getting you to interview for her/his employer. They don't control the whims of the whole industry.

briancurtin 14y ago
Nor is it likely that they care. This was a huge waste of time if it was really written for and sent to a recruiter. If they even got one paragraph in I'd be surprised. Delete - next candidate.
- user24 14y ago
  This would be true if you were reading this in front of his personal email client. Fact is, it's an open letter, and therefore guaranteed to connect with his target audience who are not, in fact, google.
- brooksbp 14y ago
  Agreed. An amusing read though... "For example, for me, video distribution is a solved problem."
nddrylliog 14y ago
Reading the thread before commenting is a good idea - you're not adding anything new to the conversation. I didn't submit the post to HN, nor did I choose the headline (which I disagree with). I'm aware the recruiter in question can't change anything, and have no hope of it having any effect at Google. Maybe it'll prompt readers to put their thinking caps and go further in their own reflection about their life and career. And that's all I'm asking for. I'm interested in your use of "uninformed" though - to the best of your knowledge, is there anything in that blog post that is factually incorrect? I'll happily correct it, as long as it's backed by sources.
- capo 14y ago
  My comment was directed at the title chosen by OP. I have nothing against your post, the sharing of ideas and experiences is exactly the right reason for maintaining a blog . I concede that the "uninformed" bit was out of place as your post seem factually correct. We might disagree that “acquihiring” is fundamentally harmful to innovation even outside of the acquiring company, and some of the issues discussed about centralization can equally apply to many other actors in the industry not just Google. So again it was the chosen HN title that I had issue with.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

by capo 14y ago

briancurtin 14y ago

Nor is it likely that they care. This was a huge waste of time if it was really written for and sent to a recruiter. If they even got one paragraph in I'd be surprised. Delete - next candidate.

user24 14y ago
This would be true if you were reading this in front of his personal email client. Fact is, it's an open letter, and therefore guaranteed to connect with his target audience who are not, in fact, google.
brooksbp 14y ago
Agreed. An amusing read though... "For example, for me, video distribution is a solved problem."

nddrylliog 14y ago

Reading the thread before commenting is a good idea - you're not adding anything new to the conversation. I didn't submit the post to HN, nor did I choose the headline (which I disagree with). I'm aware the recruiter in question can't change anything, and have no hope of it having any effect at Google. Maybe it'll prompt readers to put their thinking caps and go further in their own reflection about their life and career. And that's all I'm asking for. I'm interested in your use of "uninformed" though - to the best of your knowledge, is there anything in that blog post that is factually incorrect? I'll happily correct it, as long as it's backed by sources.

capo 14y ago
My comment was directed at the title chosen by OP. I have nothing against your post, the sharing of ideas and experiences is exactly the right reason for maintaining a blog . I concede that the "uninformed" bit was out of place as your post seem factually correct. We might disagree that “acquihiring” is fundamentally harmful to innovation even outside of the acquiring company, and some of the issues discussed about centralization can equally apply to many other actors in the industry not just Google. So again it was the chosen HN title that I had issue with.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]