ohdannyboy

I didn't know that. That's actually a good explanation for the why.

Possible, but is there any reason to believe so? I'm open to hear it.

The whole point was that companies like Comcast don't give a crap what we think and will engage in this anti competitive behavior unless the FCC stops them. Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt they would if it was in their financial interest.

But can we agree that it is also possible that market incentives aligned and the infographics depicting tv-bundle-like internet packages weren't actually around the corner? To me it seems like the easier explanation. The incentive could be as simple as Comcast not wanting a new monopoly court case or to start being classified as a utility in areas where they have no real competition.

It's probably because none of the hysterics or doomsday propaganda actually came to pass.

I guess that argument makes sense, but then don't expect a high return rate or complain "I've applied to THOUSANDS and nothing! What gives?"

The last time I was in the market was September and I didn't have much trouble (I got a solid offer but decided it wasn't time to move yet). If things have changed in the past 6 months then yeah, I don't have firsthand experience in todays market. But I always see people complaining about this kind of stuff so I'm used to writing it off. If you think its gotten that bad I'll take your word.

I'm also in the market as a senior, went to a big name university and have been at a few companies that everyone knows so my experience being choosey may be different than others.

    I guess this is some high-handed attempt at a put-down.

If someone is having trouble getting a response and answers by "well if I do it more with even less filtering then maybe one will come through" I think less of their problem solving. Although I am persuaded by what you said originally so I guess its not as terrible of a strategy as I was first thinking.

I would also compare it to mating. If you're on a dating app and write love letters to every girl who's profile you like you will get roughly 0 dates (this being the "spend hours applying" approach). If you are confident, believe you're the prize and try to find girls you're a match with then you will have a lot more success.

Several hours definitely isn't required. If you are a good match for a job your resume should already be a stand out, so all you need to do is read the listing and submit your resume (plus whatever HR system hoops they make you jump through). Anecdotally, I typically get a high response rate when I'm choosey and have never wrote a cover letter or anything specific to the job in question. Why would I need to write a love letter for a position I'm well qualified for? I'm the prize, not them haha.

Changing tactics to blindly applying for positions regardless of qualifications is just a waste of time. I for one wouldn't want an engineer who solves problems like that on the team.

My company is hiring a senior Python dev and we've rejected at least 95% of applications so far. Many weren't even Python devs, most weren't senior (no, getting that title 2 years out of college doesn't count) and some had resumes so off-putting we just said "this person is full of shit." We actually discussed adding a survey question that read "Answer 'no' to this question" to see if they even read the page. So many freaking shotgun applicants.

I wonder how many of those people are saying "I've applied to X jobs and nothing!" Had they gotten feedback or maybe read the job listing they wouldn't have added our posting to their volume count.

Is there anyone in your network you can ask? Even reddit is willing to give you feedback.

I sympathize with your mentality, but you most certainly do not have that right. With a few very limited exceptions in Texas, in the US you have to be defending against a deadly threat. Breaking into your home with ski masks is usually seen as a deadly threat, but that doesn't apply to a flipper house when you aren't even inside.

If you arrived to the house and killed them with a tire iron you would likely have been charged with murder.

I strongly recommend reading The Law of Self Defense by Andrew Branca.

So capitalism in practice compared to a perfect democracy where the powerful few handle their power without becoming corrupt? Well obviously the theoretical system wins here, but it sidesteps the biggest problem that people do not handle power well.

The prosecutor would argue it at trial and a jury would decide if the argument is convincing beyond a reasonable doubt.

We have an entire legal framework revolving around the dissolution of marriages and the surrounding issues. Its kind of a big deal (and has nothing to do with God, who the government does not enforce contracts for). Churches can (and do) enforce the "until death" vow part by treating divorcees differently within their organization.

A strange sentiment for someone who's wasting time heckling articles on HN.

Of course nobody said don't go outside or pursue non tech interests.

Why is it unhealthy for people who have the discretionary income to want to spend it on newer, higher featured cars? Seems like a simple preference.

I am not a Rolex owner or even a fan.

If you meant Seikos high end products you should have said those, no one calls Grand Seikos just Seiko since they are very different. With that in mind I don't think we disagree very much here.