His point is that the offshore structure is deeply dysfunctional.
The consulting agency tells you they hired the best senior developers, then hand the project over to a junior developer that doesn't know anything about your project and could be reassigned at any time.
I consulted for a client who cut off an offshore consulting firm after they billed 40 hour for a one line CSS border-color fix change. We were suspicious of billing fraud, but the quality of developers we'd observed wouldn't allow us to rule out hanlon's razor.
If the content is legally obtainable, couldn’t any employee use their own home network to pull data? I don’t think anyone would bother with a resi. Employees have their own network connections available.
Can you direct me to such a frontier? Bonus points if it is cheap.
I want to use voice synthesis to read my blog articles out loud to me as a self-editing step, but the experience was nothing like a human when I last tried.
The voices sounded natural-ish alright, but intonation was all over the place.
> if every company had this policy, 90 unpaid interviewing hours.
You’d be so lucky! You could then actually prioritize and choose the companies you might want to work for. If you’re spamming applications and waiting for a low callback rate, the expected value of job offer quality is low and the amount of control you have over where you find work is low.
I’m always so curious when people frame interviewing as unpaid work why they think about it this way; it doesn’t seem like a helpful framing. For someone out of work, looking for a job is a full time unpaid job no matter what, and interviews are a good thing - a chance to talk to people and show them you’re hireable. If you spend your time applying but not interviewing, that’s a signal that your strategy needs to change.
Companies don’t make money on the time they spend interviewing you, they aren’t getting direct financial value out of it either, in fact it’s a cost for them, they lose money on the immediate transaction, but they make it back in spades when they hire good people, just like you make it back in spades when you get hired. Interviews are considered an investment by them, and you should consider whether viewing them the same way and acting on it might actually increase your odds.
That’s not how it works. Interviews are like a funnel. If you don’t pass the first interview they don’t schedule you for all of the other hours just to keep going. You get dropped from the pipeline.
When a company says they have 9 hours of interview time, that’s usually the maximum time if you make it through all the rounds. If you get that far, you’re highly likely to get an offer.
You would also be surprised at how many people will actually do 10-20 long interview rounds to try to maximize their chances for the best job.
There are almost two different bubbles of candidates: Those who refuse to do anything more than a couple quick calls, and those who will rearrange their life to spend days putting in work for each job they want. I think that’s fine and everyone should do what works for them, but if you think 9 hours of interviewing is going to turn candidates away from a company like Oxide you’d be very surprised to see the quantity and caliber of applicants who line up for jobs like this.
I think you also might need to adjust your expectations now that AI interview cheating is getting out of control. A lot of companies are moving back to on-site interviews. I’d happily do 3 x 3 hour video calls more than flying and staying at hotels and renting cars to get to an office in another city just to interview.
100%. Especially with rampant AI interviewing, or even just more automated application spamming, it’s surprising that people are complaining about making it to the interview stage and having to spend time there, the stage where chances of getting the job have increased a hundredfold. If companies automated the process more, then the outcome is guaranteed to be that us candidates get less say in whether we’re hired and how we’re viewed. There’s some serious strawmanning here imagining that 9 hours of interviews is somehow mandatory and likely to happen with dozens of companies at a time. That very unlikely event would be a massive opportunity, and of course would not last long because with that many interviews, you’d get a job immediately.
You have provided no evidence why your technique is superior. By applying to a maximum number of roles, you are increasing your "attack surface". Also, in many cases, when you talk to the hiring manager, they can/will funnel you towards other managers and roles with a better fit.
Well, Oxide was the only job I applied to when I left Meta in 2022. My plan was to broaden my job search if Oxide didn't work out, but even then I'd only have applied to 3-5 places in the following round after vetting the company's culture and values.
I've always preferred this kind of targeted application -- I've applied to 5 jobs total in my ~15 year career and gotten 4 offers, two of which I accepted. Everyone has their own objectives they optimize for -- personally, I care most about building monuments of lasting value.
Because I have no desire to work for "just some company". I only talk to companies where I actually know I want to work there and feel I'd be a good fit for what they do. Maximizing "attack surface" is only useful if the only thing you care about is a paycheck regardless of from where.
A hundred roles a month and call backs on 10% of them? That's A) and insane number of applications and B) a really high call back rate.
I'm on the market right now due to a layoff and I have an agent that reviews linkedin every morning and cross references levels.fyi for role leveling and salary and then assess fit to my resume. I get around 5-10 _possible_ positions per day and with human judgement that's usually down to 0-2, averaging about 0.5 per day.
I hear back from probably close to 10% but that's with a highly targeted approach, not just spamming my resume everywhere. And my pipeline is freaking full. It's a full time job doing prep and participating in all the interviews.
The only interview so far that's been a huge time sink has been anthropic's. But that's because I chose it. Their take home I have the option to use between 2 and 8 hours and I used the full 8 hours because I'm highly motivated and the position is well fit to my career history.
You get worse biases by favoring people that don't value their time IMO. Not too mention it doesn't favor working people with other obligations that can't afford to give away an entire shift to interview for a job they might not get.
Agree. Shotgunning 100 applications a month is not a strategy for finding a good job. It says "I don't care where I work, or what the job is, here's my generic resume, please just hire me." And maybe you're that desperate, but IMO you'll get better returns spending more time on fewer/better opportunities.
Not saying we are or aren't looking for that kind of candidate, but I _will_ say that we're very keen on the motivation to join Oxide at all, and the role you're applying for specifically.
Hmm? Green card fraud is pretty easy and very common. You put out an ad for the job role. Then you sort the fake resumes to the top and fail them in the interview.
I don't think you meant to write 'green card' there? At least, what you've written makes absolutely no sense as a description of how a green card might fraudulently be obtained.
reply