If we want to go down the pedant route, the original group did not share their samples, therefore a true 'cannot reproduce' claim will remain out reach until they do so.
Writing simply helps me to think clearly. So journaling is just a way for me to crystalize my thoughts. And it works great for that. It also helps me see patterns I might not be aware of over time.
Mine tends to be stream of consciousness, just one level above brain-dumping on scratchpaper, until I hit on something I want to explore. Then it becomes more structured (and sometimes ends up very structured indeed in mindmaps or various project folders, etc).
It works great for me. I get ideas down in useful forms. I don't have to continually consciously think on ideas to keep them alive, reducing cognitive load. I have a tool for effective reflection. I feel like it's helped me lead a more intentional life. Simple as that.
Besides, the market is still super tight and shows very few signs of loosening.
What we're seeing is that the old-guard companies have hit their autumn years. But companies being companies autumn could last for decades.
I think we had too much talent dedicated to some of these sectors anyway. There's a lot of interesting problems out there that could use more attention.
I have personally been approached by internal recruiters for a position just after the company very publicly laid off people with my title and are going after 'middle management'.
I declined.
I'm a software architect but I strongly believe that the organization of people is as important as the organization of software. So architects and principals, to be the most effective, should have management authority. Middle management, if done well, makes or breaks mid to large software companies. An organization that doesn't deeply respect that role isn't anywhere I want to be.
>"Don't get me started on having to fill out sections in a form that are just resume sections"
I haven't been laid off but I've been dipping my toe in the past few months because I'm a bit bored in my current role.
The process is much more fiddly than it needs to be. When I run into those 'fill this out again for our system' forms, often times it's after a long day and I will just save it to come back to it later...and I never do.
I wonder how much talent mobility there'd be if someone really solved the issues of repetative job search data entry and just proving to strangers that you can excel in a role without running through an obstacle course that may or may not represent the actual job.
The problem with "the process" has been exacerbated recently (I'd draw the line at COVID) by the breakdown of public trust in corporations and the media.
If you can't trust that somebody who has 10+ years of experience as an engineer at a FAANG company is competent, then that says something bad about social proof and confidence.
Yep. Completely agree. Submitting resumes to black boxes with minimal responses makes the applicant not trust the system of applying to anything, and companies don't trust waves of applicants who "don't put in enough effort" to apply, and the entire system stays broken.
I bet quantifying the amount of good candidates that walk away because of broken processes would be eye opening enough lol. But agree - the amount of times I keep tabs open for roles I'm genuinely interested in or excited about, and then just bail a few days later when I have to fill things out or cut down a cover letter to a specific character count. Brutal.
Two sided marketplace recruiting company is unfortunately entering such a crowded market. The other thing is so many different roles and industries have nuanced ways of hiring. Finance vs tech/startups is wildly different.
I've had hot referrals that I haven't followed up on because I couldn't be bothered to put all the sections of my resume into their applicant tracking system...
Yeah, it's crazy that we have the tech but every input is so broken. It's like companies just do the bare minimum to set up applicant inbounds and applicants also want to do the bare minimum outbound.
I'm not sure but this has some interesting info such as-
>Some whole galaxies have average metallicities only 1/10 of the Sun's. Some new stars in our galaxy have more metals in them than the original solar nebula that birthed the Sun and the planets did. So the amount of "metals" like oxygen and carbon can vary by a few orders of magnitude from star to star, depending upon it's age and history.
Phosphorus is supposed to be rare in the wider world. Considering how central it is to everything important, life might find it very difficult to start in our temperature range, without.
It's telling that Jane Street stayed away from the whole mess despite the connection.