In which somebody who didn't want to work for Uber, interviews at Uber, is unimpressed, and they with him, but this realisation is kept secret until a story about Uber culture blows up all over the web over a weekend.
By the way, it's spelt "suit", not "suite". I believe the e on the end has escaped from "belive", which appears later in the article.
So in your view if someone isn't super keen on working for a company, but goes through the interview process and points out alarms about their business practices, that is then invalidated? Unless you're implying the author has some sort of bone to pick with Uber, and feel free to present evidence, that seems like a very silly point.
And it's a personal blog, and maybe the person is ESL, who cares if there were two mistakes? If you find that pedantry irritating enough to comment on it, I can't imagine how awful your browsing experience must be like in general.
Yeah, just a tip OP: You might want to re-read your article for typos - there were quite a few which detracted from the actual story for me.
But as an aside - I was looking forward to hearing more about what you could learn from their corporate culture from the interview rounds. You mentioned that they were almost always running in 'emergency' or 'fix it' mode and expected staff to work long hours, but did you see it in the conduct of the staff you met? Did they seem tired or frazzled?
Also, what did you manage to learn about the management structure and how they treated employees there? Did you notice that people respected their managers, or feared them, or felt disconnected from them?
The guy interviewer was so tired from “staying up
last night working” that he drank two energy drinks
during our interview and forgot his laptop when he left.
Going into the interview I had a pretty open mind. Just because I thought Facebook > Uber, doesn't mean I didn't want to work there. But after talking to the driver, couple interviewers and the hiring manager, I was positive that it was not for me.
English is my second language as well, but here goes:
Take the first one as an example since it refers to both the third person and first person asking something:
> "He then asked if I had any questions for him. I’ve asked if they had any plans to make thing better for the drivers."
The former is simply past tense, while the latter is present perfect.
You generally write a text in one tense. It doesn't have to be present, it doesn't have to be past, but once you settle with one it's best to stick to it.
Past tense as it suggests indicates something happened in the past. Present perfect on the other hand indicates that something has been done, but either continues in the present, or the effects of which are still present.
It's not as much about being inherently incorrect as it is about being coherent. Best practices if you wish.
This is one of those surprisingly subtle things that's particularly difficult for native speakers to explain, and things are complicated even more by the fact that British English and US English vary slightly in their usage. I personally wouldn't call "I've" completely incorrect in those sentences (though some may say otherwise), but it does sound "off" to American ears.
Some further reading which may clarify things a bit (or possibly confuse them):
By the way, it's spelt "suit", not "suite". I believe the e on the end has escaped from "belive", which appears later in the article.