That… Isn’t what I’m saying? I’m saying they won’t bother to go to the interview phase with those people most of the time because they have higher probability options to try instead.
Usually getting in front of a human for an interview is the hardest step. Once you’re talking, you can generally show your expertise, and most interviewers I’ve known are receptive to any sort of past experience that’s techy and related enough, or even just problem solving related.
Just to put out the other side of this, you’re competing with a lot of people with more visible credentials. If the hiring manager can look through the stack and pick out 10 people to interview all with easily understood credentials, they have no reason to consider anyone else. Interviewing isn’t free for the company, every additional candidate to consider is probably at least an hour or more of time the company is paying someone for.
I mostly agree with the article, but I’ll say that hiring based solely on resume experience is really hard for software. Experience honestly translates poorly to ability in my… experience.
I assumed they misunderstood how a 4 1/2 year master’s program works, since the masters part is technically only half a year on paper. But I don’t think that necessarily makes sense in context…
The Adobe photography plan costs me $120 a year, and honestly includes more useful updates than not. Their AI masking upgrades the last couple years are saving me hours to days of editing time per photo session.
$120 a year is worth maybe one hour of my free time. Even just migrating to Darktable would take me weeks or months of dedicated time to migrate my existing catalog.
I get what you mean, but I think stealing something unguarded and violently confronting people take vastly different mindsets.
Just putting it out there, many people you see walking around with a detachable lens camera are wearing about that much visible gear on their person, if not far more.
For a person making $30,000 a year, a $1,000 fine could mean very significant impacts on their daily life.
For a person making $30,000,000 a year, a $1,000,000 fine may mean they can’t afford an extra Ferrari.
For a person “making” $30,000,000,000 a year, a $1,000,000,000 fine may mean they can’t… Buy another island? You still have $29,000,000,000 that you can do who knows what with. This is the entire GDP of some countries. I also don’t know if this one is a realistic example.
Anyway, proportional is nice, but really you need a progressive system to really match the weight of punishments, as far as impacting your daily life or happiness.
Thinking about it a bit more, I think it’s more like the metrics used to get in front of a human (the automated/hr part) aren’t well matched to the actual goals. We end up interviewing a lot of people who are good on paper according to the first sort, but actual good hires within that aren’t as common as we’d like. But none of the engineers ever know about any of the people who were disqualified due to having an unimpressive resume…
So in the end, the initial sort does indeed end up wasting time and money, but no one’s gotten around to making a good solution for this yet. The alternative so far is to interview a bunch more people, which is also really expensive anyway.
Basically, we have no efficient way to find people who are bad on paper but are actually quite skilled.