4 ms·
how about they do what they want, and you do what you want, and you don't collaborate with each other if you can't get along? no reason to be angry. if one of
by fsckboy 1mo ago
how about they do what they want, and you do what you want, and you don't collaborate with each other if you can't get along? no reason to be angry.
if one of my hiring practices would reliably generate that many f-bombs, i'd consider it a success and stick with it!
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- preg_match 1mo agoYou're allowed to be angry when people do dumb things. Expecting your interviewees to install malware on their computer just to do an interview is dumb. Not only is it asking for trouble, it's also completely unnecessary. We have platforms specifically built for coding interviews, you just don't need to do that. I guess, sure, companies are technically allowed to request you install malware on your computer. It's probably a CFAA violation, but nobody gives a rat's ass about the CFAA unless you're hacking the FBI, so who cares. Also, make no mistake: a piece of software that is designed to record your screen, keypresses, etc is malware. It is spyware. You have absolutely zero guarantee it isn't install hooks into your system that will exist long after the application is gone. Just do the interview in a browser sandbox like a normal person, and share your screen. Boom, problem solved, we figured this out 10 years ago. Really that paranoid about cheating? Then pay up and do an in-person interview, paper code test and all. I've had it done to me multiple times.
- fsckboy 1mo agoengage with the people you want to engage with, don't with the people you don't, you didn't offer any correction to that.
- preg_match 1mo agoI agree, but that doesn’t mean you can’t call things dumb. You can. Asking interviewees to install random software on their computer is dumb, and you should stop if you’re doing that. You’re certainly allowed to disagree, that’s just my opinion.
- wredcoll 1mo agoPersonally I judge hiring practices based on cost efficiency and quality of candidates, but I suppose "making people mad" could be an alternative criteria.