simple reason. I can refactor the codebase in a dozen different ways in a matter of seconds and choose the best one to work on. I can a summon a large volume of unit tests, descriptive logging statements etc. I can also just dump the logs and it will 9/10 times tell you right away what the issue is and how you can resolve it.
i.e basically you can do a lot of work in just a matter of hours. Once you taste the productivity increase by integrating AI into your workflow you will miss it if it is taken out.
not mention you can build all the handy little tools in a matter of seconds that will make your daily life way easier.
Employees have been prevented (by rule) from doing things that would make them more productive for a long time. For a trivial example, programmers who are proficient in Emacs not being allowed to install and use Emacs.
I still fail to see why employees will now choose to disregard this particular rule, and either disobey or quit.
So would I. Funnily enough I thought it might happen at a job in the past so I've thought through the "would you quit if work banned Emacs" question quite a bit.
>> I can now ignore anything you say about caste since it shows you don't know anything about it.
Basically, your mind is not capable of tolerating anything that goes against your worldview. The Telugu coworker will know about their fellow Telugu coworker's caste and can easily inform the Punjabi.
That still doesn't solve the issue of surnames being an imperfect signal of caste. Many surnames are shared between castes.
Plus there is no common naming system in India. In the same region within the same caste you can have
- Surnames based on ancestral village
- patronymic surname (Take name of father as your surname)
- "Normal" surnames
You have folks from my caste that follow each of these. How will you now find their caste from their Father's name in Delhi or Mumbai?
It is not easy to narrow down on the caste of the person unless it's a common surname like Iyer, Iyengar, Agarwal, etc. And India has a hell lot of surnames across multiple regions.
Even if I tried, I would fail to recognise the caste of a majority of my neighbours from my hometown.
Forget my coworkers who come from all over the country.
It would only work for families that have lived in the same village for multiple generations.
We started by sponsoring newsletters and google ads. But it didn't convert and we didn't have the budget to keep experimenting.
Then I started being active on indiehackers.com and reddit to first ask for feedback, then eventually sharing my learnings and lesson in blog post format. This showed promise and got us to a couple sales per week as other founders got curious about us and then considered us when they needed a logo.
Eventually what really helped is twitter. I started tweeting in summer 2021 and talking about what I was going through, and noticed people cared and it led to more traffic to our site. So I decided to go all in and dedicated hours per day on it, trying to bring value and grow. After a few months we 10x revenue and it hasn't came down since (although it fluctuates).
The other thing from twitter is that I met so many people in the industry, this led to hundreds of SEO backlinks from people's blogs writing about us from interviews, podcasts, recommendation articles and so on. This was really the spark that made us go from invisible to visible.
Now this year the big push is to write high-quality blog posts about branding for startups. Hopefully to get some SEO traffic and grow sales even further.
I don't think it is fair to compare an MBA/Suit/Executive CEO type with risk taking Entrepreneurial/Founder CEO types. They have a completely different mindset and motives.
A suit essentially plays a defensive game. He can't take risks. CEO is just a job. The goal is to not ... things up and basically collect a hefty paycheck every year. You become a suit by being highly risk averse and if you take risks and if it doesn't pan out you will be kicked out.
A founder CEO type is essentially a wild high energy high risk charismatic type. You can't compare someone like SAMA or Zuck or Steve Jobs or Elon who won't take no for an answer and go all in to make their dreams come true.
It's not surprising. But what it does is illustrate the absurdity of the current hiring system that some companies choose to employ.
Any company that works like this is not a company worth working for. Yes, I include FAANGs in that, too. If a company automates its hiring process to this degree, what makes you think any other part of the company is going to be fair to its employees?
We see this more and more as employees with actual real grievances at major tech firms come forward and tell their stories, which always seem to include "...and then HR blew me off." Sadly, no shit. If they don't know how to hire people, they certainly don't know what to do with them when something goes wrong.
I did resume reading and technical interviewing as part of the hiring process of a Haskell consultancy. Over 5 years, interviewed around 50 people, for both the consultancy and its customers.
I read the resumes carefully. They were generally informative and accurate.
When somebody mentions expertise in a specific tech stack or theory, I ask them in the interview to explain me a key part of that, how it works and what its intricacies are. React in the CV? Show me an example. Haskell-in-production expert? Write me some code that takes down a web server, then show me how to do it well. Expert in COQ, Agda or Idris? Prove it.
It becomes apparent quickly if somebody is bullshitting in a CV, if you care to notice.
This approach worked well and wasn't changed since.
You have such a different way of looking at resumes… I practically ignore schools and companies and just look at what they actually did there (wherever it was).
To be absolutely frank: it was under "startup"-like circumstances, so I was looking for people with good networks, that I could tap into when needed. Unfortunately, that didn't turn out to be meaningful, except to open a few doors (a wee-bit faster, than doing it my self), and having a pool of people (friends and former co-workers of employees) to hire from, that were more likely to work well together and "mesh" into the org, than someone "off the street."
I saw no discernible difference between people of pedigree and the "state school," "boring corp."s of the world -- except that the former's names and institutions they were associated with were good marketing.
If someone is motivated enough, they can pretty much handle whatever you throw at them. Having better domain experience (f.e. being a software lead vs. a mid-level programmer) accounted only for how quickly they were expected to become useful, and "figure it out."
And the "Plain Janes" of the working world were usually more motivated to make a name for themselves, than those who've already been established. Some of the latter were downright useless; coat-tail riders.
The ones who had been screwed over/discriminated against/temporarily demoralized by circumstance, but were otherwise high-performers were always a treat, though. Seemed to have chips on their shoulders and would go the extra mile at any opportunity that gave them simple respect and acknowledgement. However, such earnestness is liable to be taken advantage of by the short-sighted.
I don't think I've even ever read what's written underneath those "COMPANY - POSITION - DATE" headings. I always assumed they were either so general to be useless, puffed up and massaged statistics to sell one's importance, or unintelligible and lacking actionable substance.
The only thing I look for nowadays, with anyone I associate with, is whether or not they're motivated, and if I can work with them. Usually, that just means they can take direction if they're subordinate; or they lack ego, if we're equals/they're on a higher plane than I am.
> It's not surprising. But what it does is illustrate the absurdity of the current hiring system that some companies choose to employ.
That's a broad statement. It's only absurd if there is a better way to do it that they are not using. And frankly, almost no one knows a better way to hire, which is why almost everyone is doing this. (There are interesting ideas in how to hire better, e.g. `tptacek's and `patio11's old startup, but not sure if there is anything proven, or at scale).
> Any company that works like this is not a company worth working for. Yes, I include FAANGs in that, too. If a company automates its hiring process to this degree, what makes you think any other part of the company is going to be fair to its employees?
Once again a pretty broad statement. Also one that is kind of laughable. FAANGs, for all their other faults, are generally considered some of the best places to work for, in one of the industries that treat its employees best. You're literally talking about places that are better to their employees than 99% of the world experiences, and dismissing them completely. I think your standards are odd.
i.e basically you can do a lot of work in just a matter of hours. Once you taste the productivity increase by integrating AI into your workflow you will miss it if it is taken out.
not mention you can build all the handy little tools in a matter of seconds that will make your daily life way easier.