This made my day. Bursted out laughing while waiting in line in an immigration office.
Many years ago, I interviewed somewhere where the HR manager gave me hell. It was a roller coaster emotions. She would say something funny, I would laugh and then she'd take note seriously. Out of the blue, she would ask about my childhood, then switch to why do I look stressed. I had 6 technical interviews before her that went well. I had just lost a family member, talking with her was a nail in my coffin. I was surprised when they called me back.
Two years at the job, a deranged guy accosted us at lunch with my team. He made everyone feel uncomfortable before leaving. Turns out, this was the guy I had replaced. After he was hired he turned into a lunatic who would threaten anyone who questioned his code. The stress test HR made me go through was designed to filter these people out.
I'd like to believe I'm not a psycho since I passed the test, but I don't think it did what it was designed to do. Two of my coworkers are now convicted murderers. One of them with a famous televised trial that just ended last month.
Seems like a lot of us have worked with that "deranged guy." We had a guy who would _mostly_ keep to himself, do his programming job, eat lunch by himself, but then, every so often, he'd come up to you by the water cooler and just say something random and moderately disturbing, like "You know, I sleep with a gun under the pillow and a bullet in the chamber" and then just turn around and walk out of the break room. He would also stand in your cubicle doorway blocking your exit, and talk at length about his background in the military and intelligence agencies, and keen interest in Russian sensor technology, or some other unhinged topic--for hours or until you forcibly walked under his arm to leave. He was eventually fired for taking something too far (it wasn't disclosed to the rest of the office). He had to be escorted out by security while he yelled that he was going to come back to the office with one of his AK-47s and mow it down. We had a cop stationed outside the office for a few weeks after that just in case. Fun times!
Many years ago I had a job interview that included a personality test. I didn’t take the job, for other reasons. But I always wondered what had gone wrong in the past such that a personality test for engineers was in order. I’m now glad to know. I also wonder how many problematic malcontents I would have found had I gone to work there.
I thought those tests were not required until someone hired a sociopath who was clueless about coding, but immediately started fights with everyone. We got very selective after that one got in. But then someone hired a socipath manager who started fights, sex harassment baiting, demanded devs were fired on the whim without justification. I had to block that person on all comm channels.
> She would say something funny, I would laugh and then she'd take note seriously.
In 1st and 2nd grade my teacher used to designate a student to watch other students whenever he needs to step outside the classroom. He always picked this one student who had an annoying bestie that would tap someone's shoulder or would call their name, and if they turned around they got reported.
This was brilliant and hilarious (thank you OP for sharing).
I'm now going to do the thing that I think you're not supposed to do which is analyze the joke (rather than just appreciate it). My wife has been working hard at writing short stories and I've been observing the learning process and reading a lot of McSweeny's. Comedy writing is a true skill (like Comedy itself) -- and I think this piece really nails it. Comedy is about the unexpected -- leading a reader down a path and then changing directions in a way that provokes laughter, not confusion.
The first brilliant line: "The second time I bit you, I think I was just hungry." The title and opening paragraph imply and lead the reader into thinking that this was a joke about a single bite (which itself is absurd). When that line hits, the absurdity is amped up.
In fact that whole paragraph escalates and escalates the absurdity: "I hadn’t had any breakfast that morning" to "Okay. Full, full disclosure: I’d had a small breakfast" to "The sad irony is that my briefcase was full of leftover sausages from breakfast."
Anyway, I won't droll on here. A great piece and worth digesting if you have any interest in comedy writing :)
> Comedy is about the unexpected -- leading a reader down a path and then changing directions in a way that provokes laughter, not confusion.
Yup. My favorite line was "Frankly, I think this all goes back to my childhood, when I would constantly bite people for no reason."
It just leaves the reader in midair. The started reading that sentence expecting an origin story of sorts, but the "origin" of this behavior is just some more history of unexplained biting.
I tend to agree with your analysis, but would like to add that the rest of the biting kind of ruins the joke for me as it goes too far in that single direction. Ending after the second bite (or a very short third) with a few unrelated jokes like the lack of skills in Excel macros would have made the piece better in my opinion.
I'm going to start biting my keyboard if I get one more formulaic rejection without anyone telling me why they rejected me. It's infuriating. I've got years of experience and the right tech stack, but all the applications are going in the trash!
In my case, HR tells me that I'm not allowed to tell applicants why they were rejected. Nothing personal, but my job is more important to me that someone's feelings.
Sadly this is interviews now. Someone realised that if they just don't give feedback for interviews then they can't say something incriminating that could prove they violated labor laws, then everyone started doing it and now it's just the thing that's done.
Same for references. The best you can realistically hope for now is written confirmation of dates you worked somewhere, your job title, and at a push (maybe) your salary, although I've never once found it's in the prospective employee's best interest to disclose previous salaries.
(Depending on where you are in the world your new employer may just be able to get this info from the government anyway or ask for your last payslip).
> Someone realised that if they just don't give feedback for interviews then they can't say something incriminating that could prove they violated labor laws, then everyone started doing it and now it's just the thing that's done.
(Note: I am assuming this is true in the US. This is may not be true in other countries)
Job seeking is inherently a confidential activity for many people, as the interviewee want to make sure that their current job is safe before leaving for a new role. To sue a company because they didn't get the role is to put their current role at risk.
In addition, the company has a lot more power and resources than the interviewee. They can drag the process out to the point where the interviewee withdraws, runs out of money or settle. Given that, the interviewee has to have significant proof as well as resources and privilege to able to successfully sue the company.
All things considering, I don't think the idea of not providing feedback because of legal liabilities is sound.
> All things considering, I don't think the idea of not providing feedback because of legal liabilities is sound.
Imagine you are GC and think about it from a risk/reward standpoint.
If you let people give feedback, given enough hires, some hiring manager will likely say something that draws a lawsuit. Doesn't matter if it is a reasonable case, that's still time, money and distraction.
And what does the company get in return? People who they didn't hire might think slightly better of it.
When you model it in terms of corporate incentives, the decision almost makes itself.
Not to mention the fact that even in the smallest cities there are several attorneys willing to take employment lawsuits on spec (lose get nothing, win get 30-40% of the award). If you're in a major city like NYC there will be thousands.
The math is pretty simple, Company has to pay its attorneys no matter what. Lawyer is working on spec, the client pays nothing out of pocket. Why would Company spend $400k on a trial that they might lose (and then pay out a 6-figure award on top of that) if they can just pay Lawyer $25k with an NDA and be done? Lawyer gets $7500 for a few days work spread over a couple months, interviewee gets almost $20k for a couple depositions, Company just "saved" $375k or potentially a lot more.
That's a hell of a lot of risk to take on just to send people an email saying "we thought it was bad that you bit the hiring manager." Just saying "we decided not to move forward with your application at this time" eliminates that risk entirely, including the $25k.
>Sadly this is interviews now. Someone realised that if they just don't give feedback for interviews then they can't say something incriminating that could prove they violated labor laws, then everyone started doing it and now it's just the thing that's done.
Labor laws get violated all the time in interviews because most companies don't provide pre-interview warnings and most interviewers aren't familiar with the law. Outside of a few big companies that actually have been sued over this, I think most companies just don't care.
With feedback, liability just sounds like a WAY more prudent reason than "we're lazy" and "we're actually just afraid of our own employees humiliating us".
Nobody has once ever said to me "we're not hiring you because of [ethnicity]" and I'm certain they never would, but several times I have received feedback which proved incompetence.
In general I think being unwilling to give feedback is a sign that the company is not confident in the abilities of its employees and vice versa.
Racism is one example - there are other scenarios where a company might not hire someone who they think might inconvenience them that would also fall under labor laws:
- pregnant women
- parents with care responsibilities
- disabled people who would need the company to make accommodations they currently don't have in place
There's a lot of scenarios that aren't immediately obvious unless they apply directly to you which is why many of those regulations exist in the first place.
In many cases, as long as your company's representatives don't explicitly say why the applicant didn't get the job, then the company is not on the hook.
There's, like, 5 scenarios and yet most HR companies don't EVEN say "hey, don't mention kids or pregnancy during an interview" because they don't rate the risk that highly. It wouldn't even take 2 minutes!
It literally happened to my wife the other day - she was asked if she wanted kids. HR could have warned them not to say that. Apparently they did not.
The same companies that don't give a shit about this don't suddenly become more legally risk averse when it comes to feedback. They aren't genuinely worried that your programming test feedback might say your algorithm was too jewy or your knowledge of data structures made you look pregnant. Theyre just afraid that your feedback will make them look stupid and don't want to admit it.
HR has a reason for that. Yes, possibly lawsuits, but also there is a small minority of absolutely crazy people. It's a very small amount of people, but high enough that if you do a decent amount interviews, you will run into these people. When you give these people a reason why you rejected them, they will hound and harass the company in order to "prove" the company is incorrect in their assessment. They're why we can't have nice things.
They used to be called Personnel and their job was to pay salaries, keep track of vacation time, medical reimbursements and the like. Actual work. Good times.
Want to travel back in time? Go work for a small company. Our two dozen souls are human resourced by the COO, who hires and fires, and a manager of the basic paperwork. There are no layers to fight through, you just call the boss, and he's refreshingly blunt.
But warning, there are fewer places to hide at SmallCo.
I'm starting to think hr is just filled with the dumbest people with no ability to think overall. Fwiw, Microsoft rejected me, annoying..., but, the recruiter actually spent like an entire 30 min call going over the feed back they gave. Somehow they can do it, but other companies can't?
A recruiter is a third party and has a monetary reason to work with you to get you placed elsewhere.
Microsoft HR has no reason to expose themselves to anything that could possibly maybe someday involve a discrimination lawsuit. So why would they allow it?
The parent likely meant an internal recruiter, a role distinct from HR (probably much better paid too).
It is the job of such people to make you feel OK in hope you apply again for another position with the same company. I worked for few companies that had internal recruiters.
Yeah that's how it went, you would think most companies want people to view them positively. Except laziness and lack of critical thinking skills leads to useless policies. Here I am on, on a public forum, giving a shout out to MS. How many companies am I shit talking with my friends during their work search too? Like datadog giving me three! leetcode screen questions, then rejecting me without useful feedback. Or the various companies giving multihour take home assignments then giving generic rejections.
When the market turns around (or if? it'll turn around right guys?), all those companies that just left a bad impression need workers, which ones will get considered?
Would you like to take a look at http://cupid.careers and go through the quiz? I'd like to know if people in your situation could benefit from the matching score.
The best way I got better at interviewing is being on the other side of the table trying to fill a professional position.
The number of resumes you get that just are not a good fit is crazy. The tech stack doesn’t match, the experience is totally different, etc. and then the ones that DO get an interview have wildly different experience because they embellish their resume.
If you ever do get a handful of candidates that are all actually good matches, it usually comes down to price and likability. If you’re asking for too high of a salary, it’s not impossible but it is a tough sell if there really are equal candidates. Even if you are a good match it is entirely possible that a team simply liked someone else’s personality and culture fit more.
Personally, I hate this too. I once spent over 20 hours interviewing and testing with a popular personal financial tool. Out of over 500 applicants I was one of the final 3. Even that wasn't enough to merit anything beyond a templatized rejection letter, and radio silence when I asked for any information.
Professionally, I still hate it, but to some degree I understand it. Forgetting even the matter of additional business spent personalizing rejections, the truth is that most of the time the rejection will be taken personally, feelings will be hurt, and any feedback given won't be actionable anyway.
"Sorry, you look good on paper, but your solution to the challenge you was buggy, and you misunderstood the requirements. Go become a better developer."
"Sorry, your code was good, but you struggled to convey information to us. It appears you're a terrible communicator and that would cause problems on our team. Maybe some books on the topic would help, but I doubt it."
"Sorry, you aren't a good fit for our culture. You're abrasive and rude, and talked to the interviewer like you knew better than them. Quit being a narcissistic jerk."
If you're talking about being rejected at the application stage, IME it probably means you didn't follow the instructions completely, you don't actually meet the requirements (remember, it's probably HR or someone non-technical doing the first stage of rejections; they're just driving by checklist, so simple things sometimes get triggered here; if the requirements say "5 years JavaScript experience" and you list "5 years React experience" that might not make it through their filter), or your resume/application needs revising.
Your examples presume that the interviewer actually has actionable feedback for you.
Many people who interview candidates have no clue what they're doing. I also started out winging it. And I don't see much training being given to new interviewers, apart from being interviewees.
The chief mistake is interviewers not giving feedback on the spot to check their assumptions/conclusions. Following procedure, but not actually collaborating with the candidate on their shared objective; finding out whether there's a good fit.
On both sides of the table, my advice would be to ensure that the conclusions you're reaching are openly and explicitly put on the table for discussion right there and then.
I'm not affiliated with them, but it seems like paying for a one time consultation/mock interview through https://interviewing.io/ might help uncover something useful.
It does suck that you have to pay to hear the "other side" i.e. a sort of "Honesty as a Service"...
Also, for what it's worth, feel free to reach out (email in profile). I haven't interviewed millions of people, but maybe I can help. And it's always more fun to commiserate with someone.
Wow, is that a local/US thing? Having worked for the majority of my career in the UK (and now in Central Europe) I didn't experience many rejections after an interview, but these few I did have I was always told why.
Unless you mean, they don't tell you why, when they don't even invite you for an interview. That I found very common, but I think it can be a number of things. From stuff that is completely irrelevant to your suitability as a candidate (they already found someone, but they are unsure that person is going to cut it - it's in their interest to not respond and keep you in suspense for a bit, if the other person quits after a week, they might get back to you), or they currently have approval for one new employee, but they're hoping to get another job approved any day..., there are also recruiters and middle men that just want to build up their candidate DBs. I see lots of the same ads from such companies. Then there are all the "we have a great project paying $5xTheUsual, immediate start", but when you talk to them you find you have to help them win that business first... Such companies profit from just having lots of cvs on file to be able to tell a potential customer: we have 20 people with that skill you need.
So, unfortunately not getting a reason for rejection prior to an interview stage is pretty normal.
I once got told why over a phone call, and I suspect that's because in California, recording the phone call without consent is not legal. So it would not be allowed as evidence.
I once asked for a feedback, was told that they won't give any. Filed a GDPR request and got all of their e-mails and internal tickets about me and my application. Funnily, they printed this data, scanned to PDF and sent the PDF via e-mail.
> they printed this data, scanned to PDF and sent the PDF via e-mail.
I guess it may not be in this case (low volume, text content), but this could be a tactic to generate hurdles for anyone attempting to use it in systematic fashion.
I've heard of a case where a state org was required to send some students a set of spreadsheets (I guess they required it).
They printed the spreadsheets, laid the pages out-of-order on a table (to be clear, a physical table, a flat surface made of wood with 4 legs) and took a picture with worse than average lighting and a skewed framing. Technically they complied. A person could, with some effort, read the contents of the spreadsheets. In practice, the students couldn't get to what they wanted (automated verification of the values in the spreadsheets)
TBH it had a bit of an urban legend vibe back when I heard it years ago, but I wouldn't doubt it
I think it was more about security/confidentiality - when you print and scan you exactly see what's that that you're sending. No hidden HTML elements, e-mail headers and stuff like that. And they blacked out some of the stuff I didn't need to see (again, with a permanent marker so hard to do it wrong).
Internal conversations about you does not qualify as personal data. The data was not collected from you and you did not have to consent to have them talking about you.
It's a weak, absurd argument. The key part is about data that is collected from the person by the data processor.
To repeat: a conversation of two people with their opinion of sircastor is not information about you. It's not like people could only emit their opinion if you consented to it, and you are not the one taking this report from a third-party and giving to the company interviewing you.
The effort was zero - I copy-pasted an e-mail template from the internet and volia.
Yes, this is in Europe.
I think I learned quite a lot, namely:
- why I failed the interview (I struggled to produce correct code, the code wasn't very robust and I said it's ok to put it into production)
- why I haven't failed the interview (ex. no mention of my English language skills) - which was more valuable for me than the "why I failed"
- a fairly good confidence that there's little details omitted - when they submit you a voluntary feedback they may give just the most obvious information. Ofc I didn't get the data about what was said on internal meetings.
- some insight into their internal structure, opinions of individual interviews about me etc.
I probably burned bridges with that company but after the interview neither party was interested in cooperation so I decided to give it a shot and see what happens.
I had to wait exactly 30 (or 14?) days (GDPR deadline) for the feedback to get to my mailbox.
An interviewee was unhappy with my decision and felt that they hadn't had a fair hearing - and complained.
In this case we had a standard form where we assessed candidates over multiple factors (comms skills, technical skills, etc) - so if they got to see the result they'll have seen evaluations on all of that.
I wasn't very impressed with getting the complaint (the only one out of 100+ interviews) but hopefully GDPR is a more neutral way of getting that sort of feedback these days.
> hopefully GDPR is a more neutral way of getting that sort of feedback.
Only a complete fool would comply with this request. GDPR is not a magic codeword that can force companies to give data away. I am not calling BS on OP's request, but there is absolute no way that internal communications about an applicant falls into GDPR. Basic test: did the person had to consent to "people will talk about you over email" somewhere? If not, it is not data protected by GDPR.
I used to get mad because I was taking it personally. However, over time, it's become abundantly clear that I'm either overqualified and the interviewers are just not that great or there's a major shortcoming in the interview process. It's sad that it happens so often, but for some reason like many things in the world the interview process is optimizing for the wrong things.
are they calling you? many companies have an automatic filter for CVs(one person won't read 200+ CV's), I was in the same boat till I used a CV parser, it digest your CV so programs can read it perfectly.
This reminds me of a "preemptive interview thank you email" I saw years ago. It was intended to be sent from the interviewer to the interviewee and was along the lines of:
"Thank you for interviewing with us. We are aware that you feel you are an excellent fit for the position and can see yourself having a long career with BigCo. Further, we understand that you thoroughly enjoyed meeting our team and were very impressed with the hiring manager. Lastly, we would like to acknowledge the time we took from our busy schedules in our management positions, and note that your addition to the team would surely help make us all more productive and ease some of our current demands in our daily roles."
A: We have lots of different snakes. The quality of your work determines which snake you will fight. The better your thesis is, the smaller the snake will be.
So many layers of hilarity. The undertone of academic smugness and superiority. A++++
One of my favorite McSweeney's articles. It only gets more hilarious towards the end. Very funny satirical take on some of the more bizarre (but very real) traditions in academia.
Years ago me and my colleague got tired with all the people we were interviewing for a dev position and started interviewing the ones with the most insane CVs ("I follow Yeardly Smith everywhere she goes in the world", "Greatest achievement: I once drove 30 miles for KFC" etc).
One guy said he was a "black belt Ninjitsu." We had him in.
He started talking about his dev skills and I put a quick stop to that. "Tell me about the ninja shit."
"Oh, yeah, I'm a black belt. I can even make myself invisible."
Me and my colleague: O_O "Show me!"
"Right now?"
"Yes! Right now!"
"Well, I can't right now as you know I'm here."
"OK, go out of the room and then come back in invisible!"
"Well, it don't work like that. Like, basically I can walk straight through a crowded party and nobody will even see me."
Methinks there are other reasons nobody is looking at Comic Book Guy-looking man creeping through a party in a ninja outfit....
My take: It’s just classic satire employing exaggeration to highlight the absurdities of common experiences where people feel the need to justify the non-interview parts of their job interview.
I often get profuse written apologies for minor mistakes, such as using the wrong name, which I never care to remember and never factors into decisions because I understand interviewee nerves. Here, the comedy arises from the stark contrast: while minor slip-ups are forgettable and need no apology, a bite surely isn't, making it humorously memorable.
>The ridiculousness of having to send formulaic, bullshit "thank you" emails after interviews.
Interesting. I get it, but I've never done this myself (or the had the reverse, someone send one to me).
I think it's interesting just how quickly the power dynamics of "work" change. We can shift from companies throwing money at people to sit around, people working 3 or 4 remote jobs (eventually getting fired, but finding new ones), and ghosting interviews or their first-day-of-work, to people claiming it's a "rough job market" or having to write thank you notes for getting an interview...in a matter of years.
I don't think the thank you notes are a sign of the market shift. I started seeing them from people coming fresh out of code camps, and assumed it was just some jobs-hunting coaching recommendation.
Since then I've seen a few more, but not many. I don't think I've ever waited long enough after an interview to meet with others on making a pass / offer decision for a thank you note to make a difference. Even when we had a group for a single position and there was time to pick between candidates, we at least had already passed on our feedback by the time one could be sent. At that point, I don't know that a thank you note would make a big enough difference for me to reach out and change my feedback that would put them above someone else in consideration.
Back when I was working for a company that did take home challenges, those who passed had their challenge as the topic of conversation for the final interview. For those who didn't, I gave written feedback, at least a page if not two.
My thinking was if someone took time to give me something, they deserved something in return, even if it wasn't a job.
If you have not been through the process you may not truly understand how nice (and rare) your thought process is.
Sadly I have chased up situations like that only to get told "you provided one of the strongest pieces of work, however, we decided not to proceed to interview" - or responding at all apparently.
This must be highly cultural. After you done the interview, shook hands and thanked the interviewer there in person there is little point of follow up other than an opportunity of reminding of yourself in the consideration process.
Every interviewer seems to have some set of these weird little expectations about behavior, that are basically arbitrary. Worse, some are mutually exclusive (maybe not so much in this case—though, see elsewhere in the thread where someone mentions this seems like a fresh-out-of-code-camp thing, so it might send a negative signal!) so lots of rejections end up having a reason behind them, but a very stupid reason that you can’t really defend against, to be blunt.
Bullet dodged IMO. I'd rather work somewhere where talent, productivity and genuine charisma gets me ahead instead of ass kissing (yes, it's always ass kissing... These letters are never sent out of a genuine gratitude for being able to interview with you).
I have no problem with thank you notes; I think they’re courteous and easy to send. It never hurts. If you don’t get hired you lose nothing, and if you do, you’re starting on a pleasant note.
But I would definitely want to know more about the governance of an organization that can sustain such a policy as categorically rejecting a candidate (read: contribution) for not meeting an unexpressed expectation.
As a UK interviewer I'd find them both unusual and annoying.
We already discussed you immediately after the interview. It's not going to change anything, but it might hurt your chances if it comes across as cringy or brown-nosing - we're also looking for cultural fit, and most Brits just don't do that. If you introduced new information in the email, you're probably going to force us to discuss you again, which is at best annoying and certainly burns up staff time.
So in a UK context, you're best off just saying "Great to meet you all - hope I'll get to work with you" at the end of the interview, and leave it at that.
Over 25 years as a programmer, I've only seen some very jr developers (no industry experience), do this. It's unlikely to help you in getting the position, which is why it's rare.
Some nearly 15 years ago, one of my elders told me to do this. I was later told this was the reason they picked me over someone else. That's the story of how I got a job at a megacorp. In massive companies, HR people can feel really undervalued. In a sea of a dozen of equally qualified juniors, a hand written card can tip the scale. At least then. It wouldn't have moved me and I don't know when the last time an HR person got to be the final decision maker on a hire, but that's some context.
Maybe? It just seems like good manners. Don't overdo it but as an interviewer I don't expect an email but I'd find it very normal to receive a short polite one.
Mike Edling? It's the kind of article I'd expect to have a joke name, but other than "Mike" possibly referring to Tyson I can't think of anything. Searching "Mike Edling," "mikedling," and "Edling bite" didn't help, unless it's a Twilight reference. I think anything with "ed bite" will get you Twilight results.
I think this goes a step too far to be believable.
Of course I can buy that you'd bite someone out of stress, and maybe a second time because you're hungry. At this point clearly the next step is building rapport through humour, and biting the interviewer is the logical step since that's what you have in common at this stage. And yeah I could get that the interviewer is agitated at this point, disregards your own character and preferences, and this triggers you.
But clearly you'd call. Or go in person. Or even write a card. Not send an email.
In any case, common courtesy dictates giving the office a short heads-up so that HR has time to get everybody up to date on their tetanus and rabies shots.
I used to give feedback regardless, and I found that at least 80% of the time candidates weren't able to accept it -- they wanted to argue that I came to the wrong conclusion, that my assessment was flawed, that they knew the topic and just didn't perform well and can they please have another chance, etc.
I eventually had to stop after I received a death threat from one particularly upset individual. After I reverted to noncommittal HR-ese, I never had a single candidate push back on their rejections.
I still strongly believe that companies have a responsibility to at least let candidates know when they've been rejected; the increasing prevalence of "ghosting" in hiring is unjustifiable.
The ADA ruined everything! First came the wheelchair ramps, and now the mask dispensers in front of every lobby entrance.
The covid mask dispensers are compact enough, but the Hannibal Lecter ones take up some serious square footage right at the entrance. Has anyone considered fire safety?
It’s even worse when stores mandate both for employee safety! Which goes on first?
Once on a Data engineering interview I was explaining some diagrams and data flows when my nose decided to bleed, a lot.
The blood started to run over my white shirt, while I was still trying to explain why we were moving data from one database to another on a whiteboard, with one hand trying to stop the bleeding.
I interviewed a drunk alcoholic dev once. Kept falling off his chair during the interview. We rejected him so he doctored his CV and applied via a different recruitment agency again. Got rejected again. Didn't bite me, but was close to getting physically violent. Had to call security.
That was a nice text. Very amusing. I've been thinking about start writing again, in English this time. You see, I've been writing since i was a teenager but always in my mother tongue. How do you distribute your content? RSS or people just go to your blog to read it? I was thinking nobody nowadays would go to a specific website just to read some text; they seem to want everything in a central place like a social network or even a RSS reader.
Please don't bite me for asking all those questions.
Many years ago, I interviewed somewhere where the HR manager gave me hell. It was a roller coaster emotions. She would say something funny, I would laugh and then she'd take note seriously. Out of the blue, she would ask about my childhood, then switch to why do I look stressed. I had 6 technical interviews before her that went well. I had just lost a family member, talking with her was a nail in my coffin. I was surprised when they called me back.
Two years at the job, a deranged guy accosted us at lunch with my team. He made everyone feel uncomfortable before leaving. Turns out, this was the guy I had replaced. After he was hired he turned into a lunatic who would threaten anyone who questioned his code. The stress test HR made me go through was designed to filter these people out.
I'd like to believe I'm not a psycho since I passed the test, but I don't think it did what it was designed to do. Two of my coworkers are now convicted murderers. One of them with a famous televised trial that just ended last month.