this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2023
172 points (92.2% liked)
Technology
59436 readers
3684 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's quite possible for hiring to be terrible for both employers and candidates at the same time. It doesn't have to be easy-peasy for one and terrible for the other.
Programmers are not interchangeable parts, and neither are programming projects. Some people really do much better on one sort of project than another. But the way hiring works -- keyword scanning, resume review by people who don't know the project, etc. -- does most of the "search work" in a way that pretends that both programmers and roles are manufactured objects with a single easily measurable quality metric.
Quite a lot of tech hiring doctrine tells the candidate, "It's your job to look like you're good at everything, so you don't get passed-over on a webdev role in favor of someone who wrote their own BIOS once" and tells the employer, "It's your job to hire only the best, so you don't get stuck with dweebs who can't FizzBuzz or who give up on a production problem once the network stack is involved."
Both of these are dopey.
I agree with what you are saying. But the article doesn’t differentiate. It is saying all tech jobs. There will always be tech shifts, and people who can't or won't shift with them will always struggle.