I have a friend whose grandma wrote a book about their family. She printed 50 or so copies of it. Not a chart-topping best seller, but each one is a cherished collector's item.

Right now, my wife and I are sticking to annual photo albums. They're already fun to flip through and we're not even that old yet.

> human will instantly answer "I don't know" instead of yelling a random number.

Seems that you never worked with Accenture consultants?

Fair.

Yet this can be filtered with fixed rules, like "output produced by corporate structures is untrusted random data".

Most people don’t read Aristotle. If thousands of wannabe philosophers can paraphrase some of his ideas and make them accessible to the masses, that’s a net plus. If they can stroke their vanity along the way, even more people win.

It’s much better than writing bitter diatribes.

To be fair, he’s a much, much drier read than Plato.

...what is your actual point? I'm pretty sure none of the shit I read on LinkedIn is making "philosophical ideas accessible to the masses", it's churned out 20x regurgitated self-promotional material.

Is this a bot post?

Well, their Bio is full of linkedin speak, so make your own conclusions...

I just translated that to English via Kagi so that I could understand it.

haha. No, actual human here.

My point is that some people find this stuff valuable. You're not the target audience.

I’ve had the call terminate with such candidates after frankly stating that they are from North Korea and lying about everything. The person in front of the camera would try to maneuver out of it and then the call ended as if someone pulled the plug behind the scenes. I’ve built some pretty decent heuristics to identify them before wasting time on interviews.

It's that common to encounter them? How do you recognize this scam? The deepfakes are not good enough, or by something like accent?

Never had a deepfake.

I am recruiting in Poland, they say that they're Polish, have very Polish names, but they are clearly not Polish and not in Poland.

It's easy enough to spot their resume's if you know what you're looking for. If you're interested, I can share, but email me (email is in my HN profile).

Picking the starting point is very important. "optimization" is the process of going from that starting point to a more performant point.

If you don't know enough to pick good starting points you probably won't know enough to optimize well. So don't optimize prematurely.

If you are experienced enough to pick good starting points, still don't optimize prematurely.

If you see a bad starting point picked by someone else, by all means, point it out if it will be problematic now or in the foreseeable future, because that's a bug.

> If you see a bad starting point picked by someone else, by all means, point it out if it will be problematic now or in the foreseeable future, because that's a bug.

Can't disagree at all, but many people push back in the name of XP.

Most of the time things will work as they are supposed to and arbitrage will work as a damper. Every once in a while you'll get a self-reinforcing loop and then it will work as an a run-away amplifier.

Sometimes you can pay someone who has done this before, and you're both happy. The person is happy that their experience helps them get a job. The company is happy that you get someone with the needed experience.

If I want to hire a driver, I can train someone who does not know how to drive, or hire someone who has experience as a driver. I can do either, but I'd prefer to do the latter in most cases.

But now you're dealing with a hundred applicants who claim to know how to drive, but actually don't. Either because they never learned, or they aren't capable of it.

That's why a screening is needed. If people lie, it won't make me lower my standards.

I'm dealing with this all the time in recruitment. It can be done. People lie all the time or don't read the requirements. You need a way for the ones who really do know how to do the thing you need to demonstrate it to you.

Have you ever been in a situation where you had to hire someone to help you with something? Would you really follow your own advice? Your advice does not make sense for carpenters, cooks, or drivers. Why should it make sense for programmers?

Fortunately whenever I have been involved in hiring, it was someone we knew was qualified or had references from people we trusted.

Years ago, I hired people at closer to entry level. If they had experience that was a bonus but if they didn't we trained them. If they didn't respond to the training, they were let go after a probationary period.

Yeah, hiring at entry level is great, because there are so many things that you don't need to check. It's WYSYWIG - what you see is what you get.

> an impact that I could feel nonetheless. I needed to do some light stats and a lot more journaling to build this awareness.

If you could feel it why beed the stats?

I don't think I was clear.

There is a difference between knowing something, and believing it to be true.

I know that sometimes I feel good when I wake up. I know people say that drinking makes you feel not good when you wake up, sometimes.

It takes a bit of observation and some statistical sampling to connect those two together. Now I know it, and also believe it to be true.

Perhaps "aware" vs "aware that I am aware" was a bad way of phrasing it.

It's like any good cryptographic challenge - easier to validate the answer than to come up with it from scratch

You seem exceptionally bright. Most people are not like this. This is why they are struggling.

It sounds like you have a job, right out of college, but you're griping about not getting promoted faster. People generally don't get promoted 9 months into a job.

I'm reading your post and I am genuinely impressed but what you claim to have done. At the same time I am confused about what you would like to achieve within the first year of your professional career. You seem to be doing quite well, even in this challenging environment.

> At the same time I am confused about what you would like to achieve within the first year of your professional career.

I am in great fear of ending up on the wrong side of the K shaped recovery.

Everyone is telling me I need to be exceptional or unemployed because the middle won't exist in 2 years.

I want to secure the résumé that gives me the highest possibility of retaining emoloyment if there's a sudden AI layoff tomorrow. A fast career trajectory catches HR's eye even if they don't understand the technicals.

It sucks from both sides.

I am on the interviewing and screening side and understand what you're saying. I also empathize with the people I routinely reject who don't understand why they were rejected. It's hard to see why you might not be a right fit for a role.

> it seems really unlikely to me anyone would want to do interviews without seriously intending to hire someone.

I keep seeing this accusation thrown around and like you, I have a hard time seeing this. On the flip side, looking at it from the eyes of many disenchanted candidates, I can see how a theory like this is appealing and self-reinforcing.