There are also many subskills not worth learning to some people. Sometimes traversal is what's needed and not understanding. (Though I'm never going to knock gaining more understanding)
Tools allow traversal of poorly understood, but recognized, subskills in a way that will make one effective in their job. An understanding of the entire stack of knowledge for every skill needed is an academic requirement born out of a lack of real world employment experience. For example, I don't need to know how LLMs work to use them effectively in my job or hobby.
We should stop spending so much time teaching kids crap that will ONLY satisfy tests and teachers but has a much reduced usefulness once they leave school.
THIS. Companies establish the minimum level of productivity acceptable by keeping the lowest performer. There's very little benefit in producing much beyond that level in most organizations. What do you do with all the extra time if you're a superstar? You could give it to your employer for free or sell it on the open market by acquiring another job and profiting off your own performance.
This hits home. I love the thrill of the build and I immediately stop caring once it's done. I love the 'rewire for action' perspective because I've conditioned myself that seeking information IS action. But it's not really, it's decision avoidance via constructive procrastination. And that feels amazing because it makes me more knowledgeable while also ensuring that I avoid any anxiety associated with execution. Gotta fix this.
Yep. What this shows is that companies sway with what they perceive is public opinion. From Floyd to Trump, companies are shaping their internal public facing policies to mirror where they think the public is on social issues.
>But I also think it's pretty hard to foster an environment where people of every seniority level feel comfortable doing that.
That's because pretending to be unsinkable is much easier than working to prevent the ship from sinking. Especially when there's a perception that the problem carries very low risk. That creates situations where there's little individual benefit and a lot of reputational risk for raising the alarm.
To fix this you have to intentionally create a culture that aligns individual and organizational incentives around the behavior you want to see encouraged.
Even then, people who are new will inevitably be skeptical that this kind of culture is real. And they may be right that it isn't real for them, even if you think it's real.
I saw this a bunch joining a ginormous tech company decades after its rise; old-timers thought things were true about the culture that may have still been true for them, but which didn't seem true to me.
(Also, nobody feels more betrayed than those old-timers when the culture turns cut-throat during difficult times.)
Thanks for this! I use a Perrix 835 and I'm quite happy with it except that the keys are rubbing raw and I need new key caps. But I'm always looking to trade up if possible.
There's a whole world of custom split keyboard options out there that use switches where it's super easy to buy replacement keycaps. You can get keycaps made of PBT which are long-lasting and have a very high "rub" factor so you shouldn't have to worry about rubbing them raw for a very long time.
When folks are engaging in mass circumventing of pervasive processes, it's because the process has broken 'typical' attempts to interact with it.
You're being penalized for doing right by candidates but it's likely that a lot of those candidates were penalized previously when they tried to interact the 'right' way with other folks hiring and adapted workarounds as a result.
It's a quintessential arms race. For what it's worth, I appreciate that you're trying hard to keep your hiring process broad and to mitigate your potential blind spots. That's refreshing to hear from a hiring manager.
Yep. Hiring managers are flooded with thousands of bullshit applications because job seekers are flooded with thousands of bullshit jobs, and/or unfairly filtered out of the funnel for real jobs. So now it’s a matter of sheer application volume for candidate employees more than ever, who after all are in a rather more desperate position than potential employers will ever be.
Besides the arms race with AI on both sides to filter/escape being filtered, the other problem is that it’s completely normal these days to use so called “hiring” more as cheap version of advertisement or a growth signal to investors rather than to indicate you are actually hiring.
I would hazard a guess that the average job-seeking application count for individuals has gone up not 2x, not 10x, but like 100x in many fields the last few years, and similarly for the time involved. And this happens without the economy as a whole even being in serious troubles. The only people that win here are the staffing platforms like indeed and linked-in, and the options in that space and in recruitment/staffing generally are decreasing as the industry consolidates with M&A. Brutal
I think there is a sort of just world fallacy employed here. It seems more like that there opportunists everywhere, and always have been. LLMs have amplified their destructive potential.
>In addition companies don't seem to give a shit about straightforward code, they want LOC per day and the cheapest price possible which leads to tons of crap code.
Companies don't care about LOC, they care about solving problems. 30 LOC or 30k LOC doesn't matter much MOST of the time. They're just after a solution that puts the problem to rest.
Tools allow traversal of poorly understood, but recognized, subskills in a way that will make one effective in their job. An understanding of the entire stack of knowledge for every skill needed is an academic requirement born out of a lack of real world employment experience. For example, I don't need to know how LLMs work to use them effectively in my job or hobby.
We should stop spending so much time teaching kids crap that will ONLY satisfy tests and teachers but has a much reduced usefulness once they leave school.