When a candidate fails, both the hiring manager and HR end up with some degree of egg on their face and both can potentially be blamed. Whether it's "fair" or not is another matter.
I should also point out that multiple managers may be involved in hiring decisions. The least technically adept tend to be the "buzz-word cops" and can create a similar problem to what I initially described, but not necessarily be from HR.
Regarding the doorman analogy, how does one get to send directly the hiring manager? The hiring manager can often see every resume IF they want, but they usually don't have the time and that's why they let HR do filtering. If you know a by-pass, then you are "hacking" the system that both HR and the hiring manager agreed on (more or less).
If everyone did it, they'd find a way to plug the hole. Back-doors become main doors if everybody knows about them.
If you think you are so "great" such that it's not an issue for you, why are you even commenting on it? Your reply comes across as "just be great like me, and you won't have a problem".
Was that kind of message your intention? Even if it were technically true, I'm not sure how it's use-able advice to most readers (and may be interpreted as bragging in disguise).
Another issue you didn't really address is HOW an org is to know you are so (allegedly) great.
How do you make your greatness shine in a way that you can bypass the usual HR nonsense? It's not like God stamps "A+" on the foreheads of the cream of the crop. If you know how to package your greatness presence in order to bypass HR, that's useful info to other greaties who might be reading.
So, you being an alleged member of the Cream of the Crop, I invite you to describe how to use your creaminess well. I won't even call you arrogant; I just want to know how it works, out of intellectual curiosity.
I see too many times companies demanding an esoteric skill set or combination and then bitching how they can't get qualified people. Well, I want a woman who is 25 and worked her way through medical school as a super model and just loves short overweight middle-ages bald guys.
It's easier to in-source such a wife. International competition can "work" both ways. You get replaced by an H1B, but you can take his wife. Many want to become a US citizen, and marriage is one approach. Don't get mad, get even;-)
It's important to understand the politics of the HR department. The ability to learn and adapt is indeed usually more important than a check-list of past paid tool skills.
However, that's difficult to quantify objectively. If a candidate can't figure out a given tool, HR can potentially be blamed for not verifying paid experience in that tool. But if the candidate doesn't work out for some other "team fit" kind of issue, HR is generally held less responsible.
Thus, HR protects against issues they are more likely to be blamed for. This does tilt the emphasis toward a check-list of skills over more nebulous factors such as adaptability and personality fit. But, bureaucracies do have a degree of waste and bias built in due to the way rewards and punishments are measured and doled out. HR is not "evil" per se, they are just surviving in their environment as they encounter it.
That's just life in the work world. Without re-engineering humanity, I don't know if a real fix. One must understand this bias and learn techniques to work with it as-is as a job seeker.
Unfortunately, it may result in having to lie about your background to compete, especially during IT recessions. Sometimes you just have to counter BS with more BS. If you want to be an "honest angel" and "go to heaven", then you may have to struggle professionally. It may be one of the reasons why the Bible de-emphasized wealth. I'm not preaching theology here, only bringing up a potential moral dilemma that you'll have to work out in your own way via your own belief system.
They are permanently in Opposite Land. If you say, "Don't do X", suddenly they are posting tons of videos of themselves doing X.
Maybe we should tell them, "Don't wipe yourself out, you keep other wacky groups in check", and then they'd wipe themselves out. (And the other whacky groups would rise up, unfortunately.)
Because China doesn't meddle in the M.E. nearly as much as we do, they don't have as big of a blowback terrorism problem. We pay a Meddler's Tax, and limiting drones is part of that.
retained his day job as a computer engineer with a State-run power plant in a remote part of Shanxi province, because it helps him to stay grounded,...
because bad things always happen in sci fi when you go into a cave. It's the natural equivalent of the red shirt. Hell, the whole damned planet is red!
I would note that you couldn't use solar panels in caves; and communication with Earth would require relay station(s). There are solutions, but they do jack up the costs.
It's not just eye-candy, 3D effects can convey info. For example, having buttons look 3D helps to visually distinguish them from other boxy things. Same with tabs that cast shadows. Such cues are generally good (if done right).
Why not give people a choice in the OS? Have "flat", "3D", and maybe "Jewel" for those who really do want eye-candy.
My understanding is that the ion engine acts quite slowly. It seems that the "news" of an orbit failure would be a matter of not being where it's expected to be, and there should be a period of uncertainty when the "error" is within expected measurement noise range such that "orbit failure" would be a slowly increasing probability value instead of a one-time confirmation. I don't get the "news point" thing of today.
This seems to be a complaint about the convenience of quickly collecting and/or processing, not necessarily about "breaking the rules". You seem to be mixing up multiple concerns here.
If she CC'd her messages "properly", it appears she can satisfy the rule as written, even if such would make life difficult for investigators. The rule said nothing about making data easy to collect.
Nobody has produced clear evidence so far that she failed to CC properly. I suspect there may have been times that she forgot every now and then, but that may not be enough to bust her on. They'd probably have to show malicious intent.
Jobs produced duds also: Lisa, Next, "Cube" Mac, round mouse, 1-button mouse, Apple-TV. The potential problem I see is that Apple may be afraid to gamble because if they fail with a product, then everyone will panic and say they "lost their edge when Jobs died".
It's not that they cannot find innovators, it's that they don't have enough margin to gamble due to expectations.
They should tell investors outright: "We have to gamble and have to fail to move forward. Jobs made mistakes, and we'll probably also make mistakes, perhaps even more while we are learning lessons it took Steve a lifetime to learn, but gambling is necessary to Apple's future. There will be duds."
Slashdot Mirror
When a candidate fails, both the hiring manager and HR end up with some degree of egg on their face and both can potentially be blamed. Whether it's "fair" or not is another matter.
I should also point out that multiple managers may be involved in hiring decisions. The least technically adept tend to be the "buzz-word cops" and can create a similar problem to what I initially described, but not necessarily be from HR.
Regarding the doorman analogy, how does one get to send directly the hiring manager? The hiring manager can often see every resume IF they want, but they usually don't have the time and that's why they let HR do filtering. If you know a by-pass, then you are "hacking" the system that both HR and the hiring manager agreed on (more or less).
If everyone did it, they'd find a way to plug the hole. Back-doors become main doors if everybody knows about them.
If you think you are so "great" such that it's not an issue for you, why are you even commenting on it? Your reply comes across as "just be great like me, and you won't have a problem".
Was that kind of message your intention? Even if it were technically true, I'm not sure how it's use-able advice to most readers (and may be interpreted as bragging in disguise).
Another issue you didn't really address is HOW an org is to know you are so (allegedly) great.
How do you make your greatness shine in a way that you can bypass the usual HR nonsense? It's not like God stamps "A+" on the foreheads of the cream of the crop. If you know how to package your greatness presence in order to bypass HR, that's useful info to other greaties who might be reading.
So, you being an alleged member of the Cream of the Crop, I invite you to describe how to use your creaminess well. I won't even call you arrogant; I just want to know how it works, out of intellectual curiosity.
It's easier to in-source such a wife. International competition can "work" both ways. You get replaced by an H1B, but you can take his wife. Many want to become a US citizen, and marriage is one approach. Don't get mad, get even ;-)
It's important to understand the politics of the HR department. The ability to learn and adapt is indeed usually more important than a check-list of past paid tool skills.
However, that's difficult to quantify objectively. If a candidate can't figure out a given tool, HR can potentially be blamed for not verifying paid experience in that tool. But if the candidate doesn't work out for some other "team fit" kind of issue, HR is generally held less responsible.
Thus, HR protects against issues they are more likely to be blamed for. This does tilt the emphasis toward a check-list of skills over more nebulous factors such as adaptability and personality fit. But, bureaucracies do have a degree of waste and bias built in due to the way rewards and punishments are measured and doled out. HR is not "evil" per se, they are just surviving in their environment as they encounter it.
That's just life in the work world. Without re-engineering humanity, I don't know if a real fix. One must understand this bias and learn techniques to work with it as-is as a job seeker.
Unfortunately, it may result in having to lie about your background to compete, especially during IT recessions. Sometimes you just have to counter BS with more BS. If you want to be an "honest angel" and "go to heaven", then you may have to struggle professionally. It may be one of the reasons why the Bible de-emphasized wealth. I'm not preaching theology here, only bringing up a potential moral dilemma that you'll have to work out in your own way via your own belief system.
I asked my proctologist for one. I told him, "I'd rather do it myself!"
They are permanently in Opposite Land. If you say, "Don't do X", suddenly they are posting tons of videos of themselves doing X.
Maybe we should tell them, "Don't wipe yourself out, you keep other wacky groups in check", and then they'd wipe themselves out. (And the other whacky groups would rise up, unfortunately.)
Lets all at least agree that our political system is rotted through via money. Politicians should be kissing up to voters first, not big donors.
Maybe it's not possible to prevent all big-money influence, but at least lets try.
Because China doesn't meddle in the M.E. nearly as much as we do, they don't have as big of a blowback terrorism problem. We pay a Meddler's Tax, and limiting drones is part of that.
Pffft, Cobolers
Damn! They guessed my pin number. I hate it when that happens.
Ouch!
If she sent or CC's somebody with gov't account, the copies ARE saved.
Unless your goal is to get laid or show off
There goes my plan for a little Tux logo
because bad things always happen in sci fi when you go into a cave. It's the natural equivalent of the red shirt. Hell, the whole damned planet is red!
I would note that you couldn't use solar panels in caves; and communication with Earth would require relay station(s). There are solutions, but they do jack up the costs.
It's not just eye-candy, 3D effects can convey info. For example, having buttons look 3D helps to visually distinguish them from other boxy things. Same with tabs that cast shadows. Such cues are generally good (if done right).
Why not give people a choice in the OS? Have "flat", "3D", and maybe "Jewel" for those who really do want eye-candy.
My understanding is that the ion engine acts quite slowly. It seems that the "news" of an orbit failure would be a matter of not being where it's expected to be, and there should be a period of uncertainty when the "error" is within expected measurement noise range such that "orbit failure" would be a slowly increasing probability value instead of a one-time confirmation. I don't get the "news point" thing of today.
This is the dawn of a new era in space exploration.
It better include Saved By Zero by The Fixx
This seems to be a complaint about the convenience of quickly collecting and/or processing, not necessarily about "breaking the rules". You seem to be mixing up multiple concerns here.
If she CC'd her messages "properly", it appears she can satisfy the rule as written, even if such would make life difficult for investigators. The rule said nothing about making data easy to collect.
Nobody has produced clear evidence so far that she failed to CC properly. I suspect there may have been times that she forgot every now and then, but that may not be enough to bust her on. They'd probably have to show malicious intent.
Jobs produced duds also: Lisa, Next, "Cube" Mac, round mouse, 1-button mouse, Apple-TV. The potential problem I see is that Apple may be afraid to gamble because if they fail with a product, then everyone will panic and say they "lost their edge when Jobs died".
It's not that they cannot find innovators, it's that they don't have enough margin to gamble due to expectations.
They should tell investors outright: "We have to gamble and have to fail to move forward. Jobs made mistakes, and we'll probably also make mistakes, perhaps even more while we are learning lessons it took Steve a lifetime to learn, but gambling is necessary to Apple's future. There will be duds."
You are just holding it wrong
Ironic because it was probably did in by a BSOD
no, he probably stole the coordinates from Apple
That's not what the article claims. If you have different evidence, please present it.