Using Go's profiling tool with its "source" view: I used "go tool pprof -http=: cpu.prof", where cpu.prof was generated by "go-1brc -cpuprofile=cpu.prof -revision=9 measurements.txt".
> got burnout and disgust at the modern tech hiring practice.
In my experience it's even worse outside of tech.
Because I really need a job I've just been applying to everything. Minimum wage: I don't care. In a way I'm actually looking forward to just show up, do my job, and go home, without stress.
But I get almost no response on those. And I actually spent MORE time for cover letters for those than the tech stuff. On tech I get a response (interview or rejection) for about 1 in 4. Outside of tech? About 1 in 30.
I guess "15 years CV as software dev, that guy is too smart for us" or something like that.
I keep reading about "labour shortages" for lots of low-skilled jobs... Hmkay...
Also not eligible for social security because I'm technically homeless (as in: renting "unofficially").
Might be properly homeless soon... No idea what I'll do.
I don't have a right to work in tech or a high salary, and fine, there's a downwards turn. No problem. But that I have no options beyond "burn all your savings and go homeless fuck you" has left me rather ... disappointed.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is: it's not "tech hiring" that's the problem. It's just "hiring" or "companies" or whatever.
> Because I really need a job I've just been applying to everything. Minimum wage: I don't care. In a way I'm actually looking forward to just show up, do my job, and go home, without stress.
> But I get almost no response on those.
Weren’t these the same people bitching about how no one wants to work?
Fuck cover letters. I come from a country where cover letters aren't much of a thing, and most of the dehumanising is writing one, sucking up to the hiring manager why that company might be the best place ever and you're just praying someone, is all their wisdom, gives your CV half a glance, may God shine upon them.
There is something Victorian in this prostration a working-class person must have to do just to be thrown a coin, and when you've sent your 50th CV, your tongue is sandpaper dry from the forced boot licking.
Look, I am not applying to the best company in the world, and you're not offering that much compared to the competition, nor your product is earth-shatteringly interesting. If only I could write "I need money, I am capable for this position, that's all there is to it." Because we all know that is the truth.
And all that effort, just to be ignored in the best of cases. Not even an automated "No. End of message." email.
Interviewing is like flirting. Your vibe right now is "fuck dating, I'm a man, you're a woman, let's get married because we don't completely hate each other. You aren't that good looking, neither am I, but time's ticking."
Who wants to settle for that type of partner/employee, especially if that's who they are in the honeymoon phase of dating/interviewing.
Conflating finding a partner (flirting) with finding a place that will transact your time and expertise for money (job searching) says more about how you see the world than you might realize.
Not everyone flirts for the exclusive purpose of 'finding a partner', to take the analogy further. Some people do it to find someone to sleep with.
Not everyone works to 'transact your time and expertise for money' - some people want to 'fulfill a mission' with meaningful work, and build a purpose driven career.
The analogy works better than you think - at the end of the day, all I'm talking about is making a good first impression. What you may be looking for is up to you, but if you are looking to enter a mutually beneficial relationship whether it's personal, romantic, or financial - acting like a sourpuss isn't going to help you.
You are nitpicking my phrasing to fit your rhetoric device - 'finding a partner' does include finding a partner... for the night.
Of course people want a meaningful job to some extent. According to Herzberg's dual-factor theory, challenging or meaningful work is a motivator that gives positive satisfaction in the workplace. But Herzberg successfully identified that the hygiene factors such as salary (meaningful in the 'transaction' sense of a job) are much more important.
'Transacting your time and expertise for money' is one of the main drivers for working (a hygiene factor), 'fulfill a mission' is merely a motivator. We have known and taught this to managers since the 70s.
A competent employer will of course know about this - be it through having competently trained management or just experience. Managers know that some candidates are completely happy with a high hygiene + low motivation mix. In some situations, this is completely fine and not 'acting like a sourpuss' as you describe it.
I find myself wondering if my email is broken. Which is to say I get very little reply.
Compare this to a year ago when I got a reply to almost every application I sent out.
I'm kind of kicking myself for being so picky; I haven't had a job in a few years and running out of money (I was never that well-off, but coming from a working-class background I don't live an expensive life). I've had a few bad experiences and I wanted to find something I really liked (I actually had a very well paid "Silicon Valley type" job for a company most here will know last year which I quit after 3 months because they gave me fuck all to do and I felt their engineering ethos was horrible – it just didn't feel right accepting a huge salary and not working for it).
I just recently got a job after a few years away. It was the only interview I got out of about a dozen crafted applications and probably over a hundred basic ones.
The conflation between "not a morning person" and "lazy" is completely ridiculous, and seems to prevail mostly in countries with a "protestant work ethic" background.
I've literally been fired from jobs where I was one of the better performers for the singular reason for struggling to be there at 8am every day, and where this didn't matter at all for the position if I started at 8am or 10am (for some positions it obviously does matter). That I often worked longer than many others didn't seem to matter; people take it as a marker and that's that.
5:30am is utterly ridiculous; that's just the middle of the night.
> 5:30am is utterly ridiculous; that's just the middle of the night.
There's actually a time that's generally closest to the middle of the night as measured by the start and end of the night. In fact, it's shortened from that very phrase "middle of the night". It's called midnight.
In summer around here, 5:30am is approximately the end of the night, as measured by the sun.
On punchcards having it as the highest character (with all holes punched) is the only way you can reliably do "delete" or "ignore" outside of having a special dedicated hole for it.
Murdering one person is murder; murdering a substantial number of people in a region is genocide. Scale can definitely change the fundamental nature of something.
Not really. Genocide is about intent, about who you target. Killing all Sami people in Sweden would be a genocide. Dropping a nuke on Washington D.C. would not be a genocide.
Since the text is black for most Hacker News readers, and more text turns off more pixels on their screens, my carbon pledge is to increase the number of vowels in my messages by 15% by 2055.
To compound the carbon-negative effect of my pledge, I will bully people into replacing their supposedly obsolete displays with OLED ones that actually dim/turn off those black pixels. Yes, that'll put carbon right back where it belongs.
"I want to share another idea in this post to keep it open-source [..] Let me know what you guys think" is not a "policy change on a whim". It's an idea. It was not "walked back" on, because it was ... just an idea.
Your comment is a horrible misrepresentation of what's actually in the post.
