The return of never-ending job interviews: 'It can go beyond the pale'(bbc.com)
bbc.com
The return of never-ending job interviews: 'It can go beyond the pale'
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20240402-return-of-never-ending-job-interviews
111 comments
Kudos for knowing your worth and maximizing the leverage it gave you.
A variant: government of canada/province jobs that re-post your job every season; requiring you to fully re-apply and re-interview over and over with your boss while they endlessly try to replace you, no matter how well you did. Until you get promoted or they find somebody they like better and you have to move 500+ km to get a different position
I honestly think amazons stack ranking is less humiliating and skeezy
I honestly think amazons stack ranking is less humiliating and skeezy
Stack ranking is the first HR thing that agile development practices warn against. It discourages teamwork.
I’m sure agile development also discourages reposting a job and making the employee re apply.
Maybe, but hopefully you'd have a massive advantage at your own job. There is the perception of public jobs as being a lock in without competition - maybe this is meant to fix that?
This actually happens? Which branch or all branches?
I have heard of a similar policy with State jobs in the US, in practice it's a formality (maybe because it's easier to fire people here). Sounded like "good governance" kabuki--I've never heard of anyone losing their job then.
All I can say is, wtf?
Is this fr? Wtf..
It's kind of fascinating to see companies I've interviewed at, where I did well enough in my honest opinion to get something of an offer in yesterday's market where they didn't even went for a better candidate but simply reposted the job the same week.
What is the idea? They just have it up to find that one 0.1% developer that happens to walk through the door?
I can't imagine companies simply want to wait to roll out features they are planning to build in such a dynamic market. Something you think of today is launched by your competitor tomorrow. If you have an unfilled vacancy for two months more stuff will be rolled out two months later.
What is the idea? They just have it up to find that one 0.1% developer that happens to walk through the door?
I can't imagine companies simply want to wait to roll out features they are planning to build in such a dynamic market. Something you think of today is launched by your competitor tomorrow. If you have an unfilled vacancy for two months more stuff will be rolled out two months later.
Having been on the other side, hiring is really hard, and it's usually worse to have a bad developer in place than it is to have no developer. So the smart thing to do in most situations is err on the side of not hiring in marginal cases.
> I did well enough in my honest opinion
At a previous employer, I helped design the developer hiring process. The first step in the process was to ask candidates to pass a "do you even know C?" test. Simple stuff like writing a little string handling program from scratch and identifying coding errors in an existing file. It wasn't a lot of candidates, but a significant minority would actually argue with us when they failed these super basic tests, even after we pointed out their errors. I'm definitely not saying you are doing this, but it was not at all uncommon to have applicants that way overestimated their own skill.
Hiring is just hard, from both sides. There's a lot on the line for all involved, and a wrong decision, in either direction, is costly for everyone.
> I did well enough in my honest opinion
At a previous employer, I helped design the developer hiring process. The first step in the process was to ask candidates to pass a "do you even know C?" test. Simple stuff like writing a little string handling program from scratch and identifying coding errors in an existing file. It wasn't a lot of candidates, but a significant minority would actually argue with us when they failed these super basic tests, even after we pointed out their errors. I'm definitely not saying you are doing this, but it was not at all uncommon to have applicants that way overestimated their own skill.
Hiring is just hard, from both sides. There's a lot on the line for all involved, and a wrong decision, in either direction, is costly for everyone.
I'm not delusional there are quite a few better programmers out there, but I know I'm in the upper ranks within my field worldwide. I hired plenty of people both as developers for me as for other companies I worked at. There were a few people that really blew me away, but usually I was just glad to find somebody near my capabilities.
At one company they gave me a "PR from a junior member" to review. I thought it was great. You were challenged to both find issues but also how to communicate them in a constructive way.
At one company they gave me a "PR from a junior member" to review. I thought it was great. You were challenged to both find issues but also how to communicate them in a constructive way.
Every new feature is built by one developer doing 90% of the work and a dozen others doing the last 10%. As long as the company has the 90% developer on the project, it really doesn't matter whether the new hire happens today or 6 months from now. The feature is going to remain on track.
I don't know, on a lot of projects the last 10% seems to take 90% of the time.
Exactly. I consider myself to be one of those last 10% developers who enjoys the work it takes to get good, valuable projects from mostly done to actually done (software is never done but you know what I mean). The geniuses have already moved on to the next project. You need a mix of both at any company.
Same experience. BBC links an article about exactly that phenomenon:
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20240315-ghost-jobs-dig...
I think that often it actually is about the 0.1%, it's the simplest explanation (but the ghost jobs article gives a few other explanations that are also good). Software development does not have a minimum headcount, everything you can build with four you might also be able to build with three, it's not like you need a well defined number of chairs to be occupied.
And it's actually worse than a naive look at the numbers suggests. Some of those forever openings aren't just listed by the would-be hiring company, but also by a happy flock of companies from that cottage industry of recruiting middle men, some disguised a little through different wording, others not disguised at all. Five companies looking for skill xy, and they are all the for same position that is only ever filled if the 0.1% happens to pass by.
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20240315-ghost-jobs-dig...
I think that often it actually is about the 0.1%, it's the simplest explanation (but the ghost jobs article gives a few other explanations that are also good). Software development does not have a minimum headcount, everything you can build with four you might also be able to build with three, it's not like you need a well defined number of chairs to be occupied.
And it's actually worse than a naive look at the numbers suggests. Some of those forever openings aren't just listed by the would-be hiring company, but also by a happy flock of companies from that cottage industry of recruiting middle men, some disguised a little through different wording, others not disguised at all. Five companies looking for skill xy, and they are all the for same position that is only ever filled if the 0.1% happens to pass by.
Not every company is urgently looking to fill a role. It might be more acceptable for them to wait for a candidate who is a better fit, than to hire someone they're not thrilled about, and increase the costly risk of it not working out.
Managers keeping their budget alive.
That may be true in ZIRP era. Now a days, there's no budget for empire building. The bigger your team the more that you are accountable for delivering and the higher the expectations.
I remember going through 16 interviews to be hired by a top tier Wall Street investment bank. I was an experienced hire, lateraling over at this point
I was only hired after I got an offer from a competitor (following about ~6 interviews there, most of which were over the phone) and forced my top choice's hand
Fast forward 18 months and I was laid off along with hundreds more. As it turns out, my two superiors weren't liked at all, so when the market slowed, their peers took the opportunity to get rid of them... and I became irrelevant as I had nobody to work for.
In hindsight, it's somewhat obvious that it took them this many rounds because they were not certain they needed someone to work for the guys everyone disliked. I got a couple of deals done, had a couple more lined up, generated millions of dollars of revenue to the bank, clients liked me... but it wasn't the right place or the right time.
If I could do it all over again, I would have been more upfront and a tougher negotiator with them from the outset. I either want full commitment or it's not worth it. Tell me upfront how many rounds of interviews you need and I'll tell you if it's worth my time and the brain damage.
I was only hired after I got an offer from a competitor (following about ~6 interviews there, most of which were over the phone) and forced my top choice's hand
Fast forward 18 months and I was laid off along with hundreds more. As it turns out, my two superiors weren't liked at all, so when the market slowed, their peers took the opportunity to get rid of them... and I became irrelevant as I had nobody to work for.
In hindsight, it's somewhat obvious that it took them this many rounds because they were not certain they needed someone to work for the guys everyone disliked. I got a couple of deals done, had a couple more lined up, generated millions of dollars of revenue to the bank, clients liked me... but it wasn't the right place or the right time.
If I could do it all over again, I would have been more upfront and a tougher negotiator with them from the outset. I either want full commitment or it's not worth it. Tell me upfront how many rounds of interviews you need and I'll tell you if it's worth my time and the brain damage.
I've never worked for a tech company. But I have worked for two bulge-bracket investment banks. So it's been interesting to read of how tech companies recruiting works.
During my initial training/orientation period as a new analyst at Goldman Sachs in 1999, the person conducting the meeting asked people to stand up if they had had 5, 10, 20, etc. interviews for their job offer. One person stood up when the group was asked who had had more than 40 interviews.
I was very unusual in only having four interviews before my GS offer. For that job, I'm pretty sure the person looking to fill the role personally contacted my college's recruiting service (because she had received her MBA from there). For the second job, at Citigroup, I saw a Craigslist listing either by the person himself or his assistant, talked to someone I knew at the firm who worked near him, then reached out to the person directly. In both cases the person hiring did my first (and, in the second case, the only) interview, and I never talked to a true HR person, let alone recruiter, before receiving the offer.
I've been told that this sort of hiring does happen in tech, but it sure seems rare compared to all the stories I read here.
During my initial training/orientation period as a new analyst at Goldman Sachs in 1999, the person conducting the meeting asked people to stand up if they had had 5, 10, 20, etc. interviews for their job offer. One person stood up when the group was asked who had had more than 40 interviews.
I was very unusual in only having four interviews before my GS offer. For that job, I'm pretty sure the person looking to fill the role personally contacted my college's recruiting service (because she had received her MBA from there). For the second job, at Citigroup, I saw a Craigslist listing either by the person himself or his assistant, talked to someone I knew at the firm who worked near him, then reached out to the person directly. In both cases the person hiring did my first (and, in the second case, the only) interview, and I never talked to a true HR person, let alone recruiter, before receiving the offer.
I've been told that this sort of hiring does happen in tech, but it sure seems rare compared to all the stories I read here.
I don't know about anyone else, but if they don't have me do at least a baker's dozen worth of interviews, then I start to worry they don't properly value me.
Like I'm not the equivalent of a one night stand job seeker. You need to wine and dine me with multiple phone calls, technical interviews, all-day in-person interviews, and interrogating all of my references before I'll even think of playing hard to get by threatening to leave the negotiating table in order to get my fair share of TC and ultimately agree to join your company and stay overnight on a major production screw(up).
Like I'm not the equivalent of a one night stand job seeker. You need to wine and dine me with multiple phone calls, technical interviews, all-day in-person interviews, and interrogating all of my references before I'll even think of playing hard to get by threatening to leave the negotiating table in order to get my fair share of TC and ultimately agree to join your company and stay overnight on a major production screw(up).
If it takes thirteen interviews for someone, or a group of people, to know if I'm worth hiring, then I would assume they have no idea what they're doing.
That seems like a waste of everybody's time.
That seems like a waste of everybody's time.
[deleted]
Not exactly sure if you're being sarcastic or not. But I am for the wining and dining part, accompanied by a good interview it can be fun. The other 12 parts can be skipped.
That's what I thought too--is the poster being sarcastic?
Perhaps we should be worried that such a clear (to me, at least) use of hyperbole can nonetheless be seen as potentially serious in this job market.
I guess I did need that /s. I thought I was being sufficiently over the top but I guess I wasn't. I hate multiple interviews. The best interviews I've had were a single 45 minute interview.
No, you were definitely sufficiently over the top. It's just hard to tell if you're poking fun at current hiring practices, or at current dating practices. Or maybe at both.
Unfortunately the interviewees lose money while they're being interviewed while the interviewers earn theirs.
Only when unemployed
Employed or unemployed, it's seems so offensive to me to not care about people's time. When I'm employed, I'm probably using a vacation day to talk to you. That's special time I would otherwise spend with my family and on not burning myself out.
When I was not employed, I paid for the gas to drive 90 minutes each way and spent an entire day not looking at other opportunities to be hired or other ways to improve my resume, only to be told by the director that although I did very well in the interviews, they would be getting back to me in 3 months when they found out if their hiring freeze was over then, because at the present time the opening was not yet truly open.
Have some respect for human beings, regardless of their employment status.
When I was not employed, I paid for the gas to drive 90 minutes each way and spent an entire day not looking at other opportunities to be hired or other ways to improve my resume, only to be told by the director that although I did very well in the interviews, they would be getting back to me in 3 months when they found out if their hiring freeze was over then, because at the present time the opening was not yet truly open.
Have some respect for human beings, regardless of their employment status.
My petty revenge against amazon mistreating my partner when they worked there is to aggressively pursue onsite interviews with them. I refuse to do initial phone screens - a tactic which often works to go directly to onsite since amazon is clueless and desperate.
I don't study for their stupid whiteboards and I don't study their stupid leadership principals. I on purpose refuse to use them during behavioral interviews (also refuse use the STAR method). I've had at least 5 full onsites like this. By my calculations, the wasted time and effort from amazon on myself was worth at least 100K given the number of highly paid engineers/managers who wasted their time interviewing me.
I don't study for their stupid whiteboards and I don't study their stupid leadership principals. I on purpose refuse to use them during behavioral interviews (also refuse use the STAR method). I've had at least 5 full onsites like this. By my calculations, the wasted time and effort from amazon on myself was worth at least 100K given the number of highly paid engineers/managers who wasted their time interviewing me.
I'm filled with a combination of respect and pity for you.
But those emotions are dwarfed by Amazon-directed Schadenfreude. Well done, sir/madame.
But those emotions are dwarfed by Amazon-directed Schadenfreude. Well done, sir/madame.
Move on friend, you are wasting a least a little bit of your creative energy.
Maybe he's on the extreme side, but it's definitely better than not doing anything, like the rest of us.
Beats collecting stamps or getting way into lawn care or something.
This is basically public service work.
This is basically public service work.
It's both really.
You mean only when employed.
Not necessarily, what about hourly workers or those that have to use PTO/sick day? I would consider burning a PTO day to be losing money.
I (thankfully) just got hired and it took 7 interviews. 6 of which included live coding. And I got lucky, as they could've said no after all that time investment.
I understand that hiring is hard and I've had bad hires before, so I know it's definitely costly. I've had candidates with years of experience that couldn't code, so I get some of it.
But at the same time it's almost insulting to have to prove that I know how to code 6 times over, with 15+ years of experience.
I don't know what the solution is, but it's definitely not to steal even more free time from interviewees.
I understand that hiring is hard and I've had bad hires before, so I know it's definitely costly. I've had candidates with years of experience that couldn't code, so I get some of it.
But at the same time it's almost insulting to have to prove that I know how to code 6 times over, with 15+ years of experience.
I don't know what the solution is, but it's definitely not to steal even more free time from interviewees.
"Steal" is an interesting word to use, since they don't really get much for their time spent like that. I don't have a better one, but it strikes me as a lose-lose deal if it falls through after all of that.
Agreed, it might not be the best word to describe it.
I guess one aspect is that on other interviews they at the very least pay for all the work you end up doing.
You're normally sacrificing your leisure time which, under normal circumstances, is worth even more than your normal rate. But because of the power imbalance involved, you're expected to do it for free. It just leaves a sour taste in your mouth.
I guess one aspect is that on other interviews they at the very least pay for all the work you end up doing.
You're normally sacrificing your leisure time which, under normal circumstances, is worth even more than your normal rate. But because of the power imbalance involved, you're expected to do it for free. It just leaves a sour taste in your mouth.
If you want insanity, try the "Datadog" hiring process.
I don't know how efficient it is, but from my point of view it is the most stupid one that I have encoutented:
Imagine that they tell you to take "weeks" to train specifically for their 5 leetcode interviews process. And still, at this point, it is just to "determine your level". Will it be done then? no, you will still need to do more interviews with a few different teams to see which one can be a mutual fit between you and them.
And I guess that you will still have management/HR interviews to complete that.
I don't know how efficient it is, but from my point of view it is the most stupid one that I have encoutented:
Imagine that they tell you to take "weeks" to train specifically for their 5 leetcode interviews process. And still, at this point, it is just to "determine your level". Will it be done then? no, you will still need to do more interviews with a few different teams to see which one can be a mutual fit between you and them.
And I guess that you will still have management/HR interviews to complete that.
I recently had a really good interview experience. 2-3 hour project. Then, after they reviewed it, another hour and a half meeting the team (no live coding, just talking about experience/fit). These takehome projects used to annoy me, but after this experience, I think I’d be fine with them being the standard as long as companies give feedback. Much better than 4 cycles of interviews.
I’m also pretty certain they learned more about me through that than through leetcode-style problems that are in ChatGPT’s training set.
I’m also pretty certain they learned more about me through that than through leetcode-style problems that are in ChatGPT’s training set.
We're just beginning to experience a shuffling of the top companies. Remember FAANG? Just look at how bad the products are these companies churn out. Google search is a degraded experience, Apple released vision pro, and the N for Netflix should probably be N for Nvidia.
It makes sense that the larger and mid-sized players are indecisive and taking things slow, the status quo is working out great for them. Why change it up? You're not innovating anymore, that was long ago extinguished by the bureaucracy that inevitably comes with a large organization. The easiest way to increase profits is to reduce payroll.
However, there is going to be a lot of smaller companies that will quickly start eating the lunch of the larger companies in terms of hiring. They're going to be able to move fast and hire quick while the labor pool is oversaturated. This is a growing pain that happens during these times of reshuffling. We'll see amazing new companies that will make FAANG orgs look like Sears Holdings. This cycle has happened since before you entered the labor market and will continue long after you retire.
It makes sense that the larger and mid-sized players are indecisive and taking things slow, the status quo is working out great for them. Why change it up? You're not innovating anymore, that was long ago extinguished by the bureaucracy that inevitably comes with a large organization. The easiest way to increase profits is to reduce payroll.
However, there is going to be a lot of smaller companies that will quickly start eating the lunch of the larger companies in terms of hiring. They're going to be able to move fast and hire quick while the labor pool is oversaturated. This is a growing pain that happens during these times of reshuffling. We'll see amazing new companies that will make FAANG orgs look like Sears Holdings. This cycle has happened since before you entered the labor market and will continue long after you retire.
The market ebbs and flows and your assessment of the innovation happening at Netflix vs. Nvidia is evidence of that. Google used to be a cornerstone of what defined a FAANG, but now it's become the new Microsoft, while Microsoft has been busy re-inventing itself. Amazon is flattening out, FaceBook (ahem, Meta) is searching for their next moonshot, and Apple is about to incur the wrath of regulatory bodies that their curated experience may or may not survive. I think COVID was the pivotal moment for these companies for the reasons you allude to: bureaucracy. The Goog grew way to fast to try and capitalize on cloud going up during the pandemic, but they hired too many middling people. Most companies did, but they cannot afford to do so then or now.
Nvidia is a wonderful case study in management doing leaps and bounds without being "busy", because like Valve, their winning move was to let everyone else make unforced blunders. CUDA isn't exceptional. It's OK, it's alright, - but it's certainly better than the broken mess ROCm is. Intel said "meh" and left the entire market open, despite tailored compilers being their strong suit. Now Intel is getting pounded by AMD and ARM, and AMD GPUs are a laughing stock in the fastest growing market space at the moment: AI and Machine Learning. The companies that capitalize effectively on AI/ML now will be winners in tomorrow's market.
I've worked in startups long enough to know what the end of ZIRP will do to a company.
Nvidia is a wonderful case study in management doing leaps and bounds without being "busy", because like Valve, their winning move was to let everyone else make unforced blunders. CUDA isn't exceptional. It's OK, it's alright, - but it's certainly better than the broken mess ROCm is. Intel said "meh" and left the entire market open, despite tailored compilers being their strong suit. Now Intel is getting pounded by AMD and ARM, and AMD GPUs are a laughing stock in the fastest growing market space at the moment: AI and Machine Learning. The companies that capitalize effectively on AI/ML now will be winners in tomorrow's market.
I've worked in startups long enough to know what the end of ZIRP will do to a company.
It's pretty annoying how the article is quite both-sides-ism about the whole thing.
Four months to receive an offer? Come on. You get the vast majority of the signal for a candidate in the interview process itself. All of the backoffice deliberations don't require months of meetings. It's just more okay that it gets dragged out because the market is lousy.
Call it what it is: indecision and inefficiency.
Four months to receive an offer? Come on. You get the vast majority of the signal for a candidate in the interview process itself. All of the backoffice deliberations don't require months of meetings. It's just more okay that it gets dragged out because the market is lousy.
Call it what it is: indecision and inefficiency.
Four months for an offer sounds a lot more like a terrible salary negotiation tactic. The longer a candidate will wait for an offer, the less money they might be willing to accept.
It's definitely not going to get you the best candidate, but it might get you the cheapest one.
It's definitely not going to get you the best candidate, but it might get you the cheapest one.
In four months you’d owe me another 1% just for inflation. But the last time I interviewed I got a callback after less than two months and they found I’d already had a new job for a week and a half.
(In retrospect I should have followed up with them, as the new place was throwing red flags).
(In retrospect I should have followed up with them, as the new place was throwing red flags).
that's a whole quarter + a month where you didn't have a body and stuff didn't get done. maybe they'd be slow at first and a burden until they're up to speed, but that means you start that process sooner.
they either needed the exact, perfect candidate, or else they wasted a lot of time
they either needed the exact, perfect candidate, or else they wasted a lot of time
This is similar to NYC dating scene. People are not willing to commit in case something better comes along. If you can drag your decision for 4 months, another better candidate may come through the door.
The number of times I've applied to startups and and SMBs and accepted an offer, to have some Fortune X00 company follow up 3-6 months later and make an offer is eye-rolling. The best candidates aren't the one's who are sitting on the market for 6 months, and if the cycle time to make the offer is that long then they are filtering for mediocrity.
Yeah I really don't get it. If you need to hire people, hire them. If you don't, why are you wasting your time and theirs by interviewing them endlessly?
I get that a business may always want to be open to hiring an exceptional person if one becomes available, but that's very often based on an internal recommendation/reference not a response to a job posting. Execptional people generally don't apply to posted jobs, they work their network.
I get that a business may always want to be open to hiring an exceptional person if one becomes available, but that's very often based on an internal recommendation/reference not a response to a job posting. Execptional people generally don't apply to posted jobs, they work their network.
Already 2 months into my job search marathon and going strong.
I must be doing something right because I don't even have to wait for the first interview!
I must be doing something right because I don't even have to wait for the first interview!
Similar to what social media did with dating, it also created the delusion in managers that the perfect candidate is out there.
Number of job interviews to get into any company (or almost) as an external person... 1.
Sorry something is really fucked up in HR.
Sorry something is really fucked up in HR.
We'll eventually get to the point where anyone willing to jump through these stupid hoops is primarily motivated by greed.
> primarily motivated by greed.
Or perhaps a desire to, say, eat or live under a roof?
A job is pretty much required for living nowadays in much of the world. A good job (one that requires jumping through such hoops) makes living much easier.
Or perhaps a desire to, say, eat or live under a roof?
A job is pretty much required for living nowadays in much of the world. A good job (one that requires jumping through such hoops) makes living much easier.
They have jobs where the interview isn't a hazing ritual. Those do exist, if you don't need a tech salary.
Weird, literally the majority of people who eat or live under roofs don’t have jobs.
Nowadays?
Someone jumping through lots of hoops to get a job is greedy? Why would that make sense?
I guess GP was only thinking of people that do have a job looking for greener grass. For that subset I'm inclined to agree, despite vigorously agreeing with the counter opinions in the general case.
Why would looking for a better job be greedy?
The not so greedy might certainly be looking, but their willingness to jump through hoops would have a limit somewhere.
Require a very large number of hoops to be jumped through and every single hire will be of the kind who would have zero qualms to sell your company internals to the highest bidder if given the chance.
Require a very large number of hoops to be jumped through and every single hire will be of the kind who would have zero qualms to sell your company internals to the highest bidder if given the chance.
This seems like you're bending over backwards to hallucinate some made up exotic scenario that has never happened.
Require a very large number of hoops to be jumped through and every single hire will be of the kind who would have zero qualms to sell your company internals to the highest bidder if given the chance.
What are you even talking about. What are you basing this on?
Require a very large number of hoops to be jumped through and every single hire will be of the kind who would have zero qualms to sell your company internals to the highest bidder if given the chance.
What are you even talking about. What are you basing this on?
Are you saying that the mechanism does not exist or are you saying that it's not pushed into critical regions all that often?
If it's the latter, I certainly agree that it's an area where opinions can legitimately vary a lot and I would not pick "it happens very often!" as a hill to die on. If it's the former, I vehemently disagree. At some point, everybody leaves except the terminally greedy. Perhaps that point is never reached (I doubt it, but I respect options to the opposite), but the point exists.
If it's the latter, I certainly agree that it's an area where opinions can legitimately vary a lot and I would not pick "it happens very often!" as a hill to die on. If it's the former, I vehemently disagree. At some point, everybody leaves except the terminally greedy. Perhaps that point is never reached (I doubt it, but I respect options to the opposite), but the point exists.
Are you saying that the mechanism does not exist or are you saying that it's not pushed into critical regions all that often?
I have absolute no idea what you're talking about now.
everybody leaves except the terminally greedy
People that stay at their jobs are "terminally greedy"? They are going to die from greed?
I have absolute no idea what you're talking about now.
everybody leaves except the terminally greedy
People that stay at their jobs are "terminally greedy"? They are going to die from greed?
Everybody leaves during recruitment. That's what we are talking about, in particular the subset of candidates who already have a job. Make it a two year process, but at the end there's the promise of truly exceptional compensation, and you can take it as an absolute given that nobody will be left who would not do anything for money. (if you extend observation to those without a job, it's the exceptionally greedy plus those incapable of finding something different. congratulations.)
This seems more like you are jealous of tech workers with high pay and want some rationalization to call them greedy.
Or a masochist. They really like finding those.
Just a periodic reminder that 'Beyond the Pale' is a pro-colonialist phrase that many believe was was part of Britain's Centuries-long campaign to eliminate Irish culture.
https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2012/12/beyond-the-pale.h...
https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2012/12/beyond-the-pale.h...
It makes sense you tacitly think colonialism is necessarily bad.
Is that one of those "it becomes true if you repeat it often enough?" There's at least one other attribution, and it's probably just as made up.
That's the exact opposite of what the link you included says.
From https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2012/12/beyond-the-pale.h...
As for the relationship between the two expressions, the OED has this to say:
“The theory that the origin of the phrase [‘beyond the pale’] relates to any of several specific regions, such as the area of Ireland formerly called the Pale … or the Pale of Settlement in Russia … is not supported by the early historical evidence and is likely to be a later rationalization.”
From https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2012/12/beyond-the-pale.h...
As for the relationship between the two expressions, the OED has this to say:
“The theory that the origin of the phrase [‘beyond the pale’] relates to any of several specific regions, such as the area of Ireland formerly called the Pale … or the Pale of Settlement in Russia … is not supported by the early historical evidence and is likely to be a later rationalization.”
Also from the article: a “pale” is a fence. “Beyond the pale” used to require a suffix (e.g., “beyond the pale of reason”) but eventually by itself started to be short for “beyond the pale of acceptable behavior”.
You have successfully repeated the opinion of the Oxford English Dictionary after reading an entire article about how the British used Pales to colonize areas and define boundaries, but I'm not sure it's as cut and dry as you want it to be.
Dude it was your source. Take the L and don't cite sources you haven't read going forward.
Please don't make personal attacks like that on this forum, it's against the rules.
So is claiming someone didn't read a source when you disagree with their interpretation.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
So is claiming someone didn't read a source when you disagree with their interpretation.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I'm saying you didn't read the source because you cited a source and it clearly contradicted what you said.
I don't know why you're still typing, you're not convincing anybody, you're not getting any karma, and nobody is gonna respect you more for refusing to acknowledge how blatantly wrong you are. The best you can do here is admit (to yourself) you screwed up and that you have a lot of trouble admitting when you're wrong, and then working on that character flaw -- your life will go a lot smoother.
I don't know why you're still typing, you're not convincing anybody, you're not getting any karma, and nobody is gonna respect you more for refusing to acknowledge how blatantly wrong you are. The best you can do here is admit (to yourself) you screwed up and that you have a lot of trouble admitting when you're wrong, and then working on that character flaw -- your life will go a lot smoother.
[deleted]
That claim is not supported in the source you linked. In fact, it's directly contradicted several times. For example, toward the end, it quotes the OED:
"The theory that the origin of the phrase [‘beyond the pale’] relates to any of several specific regions, such as the area of Ireland formerly called the Pale … or the Pale of Settlement in Russia … is not supported by the early historical evidence and is likely to be a later rationalization.”
Throughout, your source draws a distinction between the histories of the separate phrases "beyond the pale" and "pale of settlement".
So I guess your statement might be true in the narrow sense that "many believe" the false etymology, just as you can find many who believe that the earth is flat. But that's not a good reason to go around chiding people for using a common expression.
"The theory that the origin of the phrase [‘beyond the pale’] relates to any of several specific regions, such as the area of Ireland formerly called the Pale … or the Pale of Settlement in Russia … is not supported by the early historical evidence and is likely to be a later rationalization.”
Throughout, your source draws a distinction between the histories of the separate phrases "beyond the pale" and "pale of settlement".
So I guess your statement might be true in the narrow sense that "many believe" the false etymology, just as you can find many who believe that the earth is flat. But that's not a good reason to go around chiding people for using a common expression.
What about the link contradicts the point that it's pro-colonialist?
The etymology is in doubt for any particular area, not the concept of what a pale was and how it was used to colonize.
That is the point of "many believe."
Also keep in mind that the major doubter is the Oxford English Dictionary...
The etymology is in doubt for any particular area, not the concept of what a pale was and how it was used to colonize.
That is the point of "many believe."
Also keep in mind that the major doubter is the Oxford English Dictionary...
Hmm, so if you're interested in my answer, I guess I would ask you how you want to proceed. Do we want to accept that OED is an trustworthy catalog of etymological facts, or not? If not, why? Do you think the quotes it pulls from the 1700's are fabricated? Do you think it's suppressing an earlier usage of "pale of settlement"? What is your claim, exactly?
You're the one whose source was quoting from OED, so you tell me. It'll be easier if we're starting from a shared ground truth.
You're the one whose source was quoting from OED, so you tell me. It'll be easier if we're starting from a shared ground truth.
No I just think all those quotes reference colonization.
Many people believe that specifically the Irish Pale popularized the statement, but the OED aren't among them.
What are we disagreeing about?
Many people believe that specifically the Irish Pale popularized the statement, but the OED aren't among them.
What are we disagreeing about?
Where exactly is the reference to colonization in the Mackenzie quote? This one: "when we would be blessed beyond the pale of reason, we are blessed imperfectly". Sorry, I'm not seeing it.
"Many people believe..."
Name one. Have a free do-over: pick a source you actually agree with this time. Make sure it doesn't quote any reference books that you distrust.
"Many people believe..."
Name one. Have a free do-over: pick a source you actually agree with this time. Make sure it doesn't quote any reference books that you distrust.
[deleted]
The phrase seems to refer to journeying "beyond the established border" of the settlement. Even if this is from a colonialist perspective, that doesn't obviously make it "pro-colonialist".
> Also keep in mind that the major doubter is the Oxford English Dictionary
So we are to disregard English opinion on the English language?..
> Also keep in mind that the major doubter is the Oxford English Dictionary
So we are to disregard English opinion on the English language?..
Just a periodic reminder that the origin or words or phrases doesn't have bearing on their meaning today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy
Incorrect from a formal logic standpoint.
It doesn't necessarily have bearing, but you cannot generalize the way you are doing.
Then no word would mean anything.
It doesn't necessarily have bearing, but you cannot generalize the way you are doing.
Then no word would mean anything.
And who cares if it was? I don't see a movement of the Irish to eradicate this phrase.
Isn't this a forum for the intellectually curious?
I made no call to action.
I guess I should have known any time the information is something certain people would consider 'woke' it elicits a strong emotional reaction beyond the information itself.
My bad.
I made no call to action.
I guess I should have known any time the information is something certain people would consider 'woke' it elicits a strong emotional reaction beyond the information itself.
My bad.
Indeed, we're even curious enough to read your link! And to discover that it says the opposite of what you claimed! What you're seeing is in fact a strong emotional reaction to misinformation.
And your implicit call to action was crystal clear. Don't be coy.
And your implicit call to action was crystal clear. Don't be coy.
Speaking as an Irishman, please be comforted to know that I truly don't care about the original meaning (whatever it truly was) of the phrase.
As someone else who doesn't deal in identity politics, please know I don't care what you think of it and was trying to share information on a forum for the intellectually curious.
I thought you might be arguing your position because you wanted to stand up for persons like me.
It appears I was mistaken, and I apologise.
It appears I was mistaken, and I apologise.
I’m willing to believe that because so much of our language is tainted in that way, however the blog you are referencing here doesn’t support what you are saying. You mention “many people” believe this so surely there are better sources.
There isn't much to "colonialism". It's just the establishment of colonies. In the many historical cases where the subject peoples were cannibals, I would have supported colonization.
They had a policy that forced every new hire to go through a temp hire process and work for at least 3 months before being hired on with the company and receiving benefits and decent pay.
There was no way I was going to allow myself to do the same work for less pay and no benefits for 3 entire months or more.
So after my first week I told the materials engineer that I would need to leave early on a Friday because I had a job interview.
I told him that at 9:30am and by 1pm he offered me a full time position. I was the only person who had ever skirted around the temp hire process and it upset quite a few people. But I knew what I was worth.