> Now am I supposed to bundle up all those 450 initial applications that got filtered out just to send them a nice polite email that their resumes didn't even fit the position they applied for? From a pure business perspective this is a straight waste of time.
It's not paper, dude. It's a Select-All operation and then a matter of removing the one person who you did choose to hire. It doesn't have to be personalized. That straw-man is a pure invention of your imagination. A rejection email that says, "You didn't get the job. We hired someone else." as coarse as it is, would be infinitely less insulting, stressful, discourteous, etc. than just flat-out ghosting.
There's no complex "automation" to set up. This is something that programs since the 90s have been able to do.
You could argue that this doesn't align with the software/workflow that you're using, but that's on you (and if this is your actual dayjob, you have no excuse, and the article's and other commenters' remarks about basic lack of respect and human decency are spot-on).
Obviosuly discourages because they're not equivalent and creates confusion. Stallman himself was selling copies of Emacs while releasing it under a Free license.
Some may be confused into thinking this reply is a correction. I don't mean to appear to rebut.
We know that the FSF is aware of the problem. The trouble can only be if we expect more success from repeating the same tactics for the next forty years. I would blame no one for expecting the FSF to stay the course and to achieve similar effects. I would also not blame them for choosing a different path for themselves and recommending so to others.
The beginning of the English word "fuchsia" is not pronounced like the German word Fuchs, so indeed the spelling does not match the pronunciation. This is independent of the fact that it comes from that word. Plenty of things in English (and, in fact, loanwords in every language) sound different from the words they're derived from; that doesn't mean trying to imitate the source language is the "right" pronunciation. If you pronounce fuchsia like "fuksia" nobody will understand you.
:)
Yeah, probably in this case English is doing the right thing, pronunciation wise.
Anyway, checking in Google Translate the pronunciation it plays "fuksia", while Wikipedia has the right version.
The latter is a byproduct of how GitHub's upperhanding[1]/casting couch culture has overtaken the Web community and how a bunch of software gets built, generally. The Shirky era[2] is gone. You're not seen or to be treated as a neighbor showing up with a helpful tip that one of your pipes has burst. You're going to be seen as another person who wants something from them, or, at best, a starlet who can do something for the cigar champers and'll be willing to put up with a lot of crap because you're trying to build a résumé.
This in large part because of two design decisions that GitHub made early on: the contribution graph on profile pages and naming the bugtracker "GitHub Issues" (and promoting a culture where people with support requests are funneled into the same side door as collaborators trying to keep tabs on software defects—i.e. people who need a real bugtracker).
I really tried to get it on my own, but please, what is the connection between the Seinfeld Episode "The Pez Dispenser" and the "Casting Couch Culture of GitHub"?
reply