"Up to 50% off or more!"
this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
243 points (95.8% liked)
Mildly Infuriating
37761 readers
607 users here now
Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.
I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!
It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
7. Content should match the theme of this community.
-Content should be Mildly infuriating.
-The Community !actuallyinfuriating has been born so that's where you should post the big stuff.
...
8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.
-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.
...
...
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That or when the range is so huge as to be meaningless - a $25k-150k range is completely useless.
Thankfully some states in the US have made this illegal, like Colorado.
I don't usually complain about how people convey what they want, but this one often annoys me a bit - because it's a matter of clarity.
Some might say "well, there's uncertainty on the min/max", but then the higher/lower boundary of the uncertainty doesn't mean anything. That's the case here - it's effectively "minimum 5 years experience", unless you say what would require more experience.
The higher bound is an indication of maximum salary. It's saying "we need at least 5 years experience, but if you have 30, we're paying you like you have 5."
The higher bound is an indication of maximum salary.
Is this something that you know, or that you're assuming?
Note that in both cases it only reinforces what I said about clarity. If the higher bound of the range:
- is indeed related to the salary - then it is not a requirement, nor should be listed as such
- is related to something else - are they expecting appliers to assume what the range means?
I've been hiring people for 10 years. Before it was common to post salaries, this was a good way to not waste people's time interviewing for jobs below their rate.
It's in the requirement section because that's the section we are able to modify on the stupid Excel sheet that the recruiters force us to use.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Talk about apologist conjecture.
I've hired people for a decade. I'm explaining why it's there. I'm not saying it's the right way to do it. Just that this is the way it's done.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(9 replies)
Most IT job postings done by recruiters are hilariously bad, I scrolled through some and I'm just like "really? That's all you're telling me?"
"expert knowledge in NT, FreeBSD, Cisco IOS, Java, C#, Active Directory, Windows Server, Fortinet". Uh huh. Just be an expert at everything, I see.
Then you do the interview and they want like 2 of those things and less experience is fine. 🙄
They want the unicorn, they will settle for a horse with a horn taped to its forehead.
"...will you accept a whale that thinks it's a unicorn?"
A job I'm interviewing for now asked me if I had experience with libvirt, qemu,and KVM.
(For those not in the know, libvirt is a wrapper around qemu, KVM is the name of the technology, so if you have experience with one or both of the first two, you definitely have experience with the last one).
man would it be nice if I could just get to the fucking interview
This is my first interview after 3 months of applying (not every day, mind you, I've probably applied to like 300 jobs though). I have another one in the next few days as well, for another company.
LinkedIn Premium does actually seem to help, compared to sites like Dice. Good luck out there, it's pretty rough right now.
Recruiting is the great leveller. Those who don’t have any skills can at least make it harder for companies to hire people who do have skills.
I think it means that if you have 10 years of experience you are welcome to apply, but they are only willing to pay commensurate to experience up to 10 years.
Probably right, and they don’t need the word minimum at all
I would have assumed that the minimum could change based on the candidates. So if they get a bunch of 10+ year candidates, any 5 year candidates would just be skipped.
“Minimum” in this could refer not to the number of years but to the criteria of eligibility. The sentence might mean “At minimum you have to pass the following eligibility criteria: between 5 and 10 years experience.”
If they then give other criteria that you have to match, that’s nonsense :)
Or I suppose it could mean they’re looking for someone with a minimum of five years, and while they’re not looking for someone with more than 10 years they will consider them. “We want someone with (hard minimum of 5) to (soft maximum of 10) years experience.
Is the job for someone to improve the clarity of their communications by any chance?
load more comments
(1 replies)
I once had a colleague update a shitty webapp we had written to add a message saying "pages loading may take up to a minute or more"
Or say "an average of" and give a range.
This is just non-math language describing a standard deviation.
You need an average of between 6 years.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yeah it's grammatically incorrect but don't we know what they mean? They would settle for 5 years experience if they had to, but 10 years is very much preferred and if they felt they could require 10 they would.
Most neurotypical people don't need everything to be ridigly perfect in definitions. We understand what they meant. I think the objection to this comes from the more autistic type folks. Which isn't to say they are wrong for being different.
load more comments
(1 replies)
And offer them that sweet fresh-out-of-college salary
The thing is that despite my original post I actually agree with you and quietly hate myself for being mildly infuriated by this.
I recommend you read my reply to another poster who is mildly infuriated by incorrect grammar.
Seems like a linear algebra question. Are they trying to test you on the optimal region?
I, too, am irritated by this.
That means you put it outside of the 70% who have to match.
You’d be surprised what kind of applicants you get when you don’t add that as a requirement.
OP isn't saying not to add the requirement. They're saying it should read "minimum 5 years", not "minimum 5 to 10 years" which makes no sense.
Ahh. Got it. My mistake.
But - I wouldn't be surprised actually. What I am surprised with is what kind of applicants I get even with requirements like that (although more precise) in the job ad.
view more: next ›