tidepod12

10 ms·

31.
by tidepod12 6y ago
The major Cloudflare products (namely the CDN, WAF, DDoS protection, DNS management, and even serverless workers) are already replicated in AWS, GCP, and Azure. AFAIK the main thing that draws people to Cloudflare instead is "it's
32.
by tidepod12 6y ago
That's what they said. From the article: "They said that I interviewed extremely well, but that they decided to go with another candidate."
33.
by tidepod12 6y ago
Yea, it's weird reading this thread to me. I have a cordless Dyson vacuum and it is by far the best home vacuum I have ever used, both in terms of suction power (even compared to non-cordless ones) and in terms of other usability&#x2
34.
by tidepod12 6y ago
I addressed your "free work" comment in a separate subthread in response to your comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26096991
35.
by tidepod12 6y ago
Ironic, because your initial comment was just repeating the same argument that someone made before you with no variation. If you wanted a different response, you should have tried coming up with a novel thought rather than one that was alre
36.
by tidepod12 6y ago
>Some company just expecting free work comes closer to the definition of "entitlement", in my opinion. If you want a job, you have to put in work. That's just how it is. I too wish companies would just throw job offers at
37.
by tidepod12 6y ago
It very much depends on what type of position the interview is for, IMO. If it's for a SWE position and the company is asking for a PowerPoint presentation about the SWE's background and past projects, that seems tangential at bes
38.
by tidepod12 6y ago
They didn't waste his time. OP put in work and in return the company gave them a chance to be hired. Once it was known that there was no longer a chance for them to be hired, the company told OP to stop putting in work for it. If the c
39.
by tidepod12 6y ago
You say "strung along", I say "they were willing to give OP a chance at the job even though OP was not fully qualified for it, and when it was decided that the role was no longer available to OP, they told OP that rather than
40.
by tidepod12 6y ago
>I highly doubt that the HR went from 0 to a hire in <1 week. The hired candidate was obviously already in a more advanced stage of the interviewing process when the OP was asked to make a presentation. That doesn't change anythi
41.
by tidepod12 6y ago
When they asked them to prepare the presentation, they likely had full intention to consider them for hiring. Then, another candidate filled the role, meaning the company no longer would be able to hire the author. Informing them of this an
42.
by tidepod12 6y ago
I've worked at, hired at, and consulted at many companies. I've never once seen an HR department be incentivized to interview people just for the sake of interviewing. At my last two companies, recruiters are measured on the numbe
43.
by tidepod12 6y ago
Where you see condescension I see a recruiter being genuinely helpful by clearly laying out expectations for what will happen during the presentation and how it will go. Some of that stuff might seem obvious for some people, but my experien
44.
by tidepod12 6y ago
They were likely willing to hire the author anyway, even without the experience. But they ended up finding someone that was better than the author. >Can you explain why they might have gone with the above excuse rather than "we foun
45.
by tidepod12 6y ago
It's really hard to tell if the company was "wrong" here based on the available information. I'm tempted to say the company is, because I certainly have personal experience with companies that do shitty things during int
46.
by tidepod12 6y ago
>only to get turned down with an explanation that was known at the beginning. How many interviews does it take to come to that realization? The explanation likely wasn't known at the beginning. The thing that changed was the other
47.
by tidepod12 6y ago
Companies don't just interview people for shits and giggles. It costs a lot of money and people-hours to interview someone. The notion that "they didn't even read the resume and had no intention of ever hiring this person&quo
48.
by tidepod12 6y ago
My guess is that it wasn't actually a deal-breaker, and if there were no other candidates or if the other candidate ended up not being a good fit, the company wanted to go ahead with the presentation to see if they would be a good fit
49.
by tidepod12 6y ago
I don't think anyone would disagree with the statement that hiring is terribly, atrociously, and disastrously broken. It's been talked about ad nauseum. But I don't think I've ever seen (nor do I personally have) any pra
50.
by tidepod12 6y ago
The regulations, such as FINRA Rule 2111, were not in place until the early 2010s. FINRA/SEC implemented stricter requirements for the verification I mentioned in my first comment, but over the past ~5-7 years the brokerages have relax
51.
by tidepod12 6y ago
>If there was wrongdoing, the SEC would be all over it. Like this? https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/robinhood-reportedly-facing-... >all tobacco companies just because the users are too stupid to read th
52.
by tidepod12 6y ago
And company's need to take more responsibility for their own actions as well, instead of blaming their users for being stupid. Predatory and aggressive behavior isn't made acceptable just because the person you preyed on was fooli
53.
by tidepod12 6y ago
The minimum age for gambling in many states is 21. So yes, if this 20 year old student walked into a casino and gambled away all his money, it would be the casino's fault for allowing that to happen.
54.
by tidepod12 6y ago
Brokers are required by law to "protect" traders from financially harming themselves by restricting the trades that can be made until the trader verifies that they know what they are doing. Some brokers will go as far as to person
55.
by tidepod12 6y ago
>The conclusion here is that RH is a toy broker following the mantra of move fast and breaks things. I personally see them at the Juul of the finance world. They're intentionally targeting young inexperienced people and telling them
56.
by tidepod12 6y ago
>You have to go out of your way to trade options (they're disabled by default), and the only way you can get options enabled in Robinhood as a college freshman is to straight up lie on the application. If all it took was a lie on an
57.
by tidepod12 6y ago
The ITU does have jurisdiction. Since SpaceX (and Amazon) are US companies, they work with the FCC, who then works with the ITU on behalf of SpaceX/Amazon.
58.
by tidepod12 6y ago
In 2017 SpaceX was granted a window to "lock down" its proposed slots for 9 years to prevent others from taking those slots, and that was years before they even had a single satellite flying. I don't see why Amazon shouldn&#x
59.
by tidepod12 6y ago
Secondary comment: SpaceX's behavior in this instance is not unlike every other ISP in America engaging in anti-competitive behavior to keep newcomers out. Remember when Google Fiber was rolling out and tried to use fiber/utility
60.
by tidepod12 6y ago
I don't see how this addresses any of the concerns brought up in the article. This entire spat is because SpaceX got approval from the FCC to deploy their system in a specific way, and Amazon acknowledged that and designed their system

More ›