seaknoll

The images are of various ages. This article describes the subset that are the oldest, but there are newer ones mixed in. In some places you get layers of them, where you can see that the older ones were drawn over. They can estimate how much later they were added based on the presence of animals and objects that did not exist there 12,000 years ago.

It's true that there's a huge gap in time between the earliest paintings and the newer ones and so some aspects of the culture probably did change. But the area has been continuously populated for millennia.

I've been here and to a few other, equally spectacular sites in this general part of Colombia. They're well-known among local people, but some are VERY hard to get to (freight or chartered plane to a community completely unattached to the rest of the country by road + hours-long boat journey + hours of hiking).

They can be quite sad though, e.g. the relatively newer images depict colonization encroaching upon the region - horses (introduced by the colonists), swords, and scenes that appear to show imprisonment of people.

In that case, you might want to have a friend/acquaintance with a job like what you want to review your resume and give you feedback on that and a first round-style interview. If you don’t know anyone who can, read over resumes on linkedin, and pay close attention to the language used, and to the extent that it’s relevant to your work try to mirror it. Try to be direct and confident about what you know/don’t know during the interview, and try to at least learn how to talk about technologies that touch what you’re more expert in.

Practice algorithms and read about software design in your spare time. Apply to tons of companies, be prepared to be rejected from almost all of them, and to be asked questions that you have no intelligent answer to. Remember what they asked you, learn the problems you got wrong, and repeat. It may be brutal and embarrassing at times but if you keep at it you will eventually get a job. The only thing I can say about maintaining any sense of morale is to take some pride in the fact that you’re pushing yourself, and that tons of people have had the same shitty interviewing experience but gotten through it and realized it was 1000% worth the pain.

There’s a time and place for asking explicitly for feedback - it can give you 1:1 time with a mentor, and make you look engaged with your role.

But IMO more important is being able to see/hear feedback day to day without having to ask. Try to notice patterns in code review comments, which conversations you’re having trouble participating in due to lack of seniority in that area, which of your suggestions fall flat, etc. and don’t be afraid to ask lots of questions (nondefensively!)/do some research if you don’t understand why you’re getting a particular reception.

I'd also suggest trying to harness the "what if I am wrong" so you can use it to your advantage - it sounds like the kind of attitude that could make you excellent at testing. If you turn it into a curious question instead of a self-judgment, it may help identify ways to test something that would give you full confidence that it works. Which is a very valuable skill to have.

I'm not perfect about this but one experience in particular helped me.

I was a new employee doing on-the-job training for an even newer employee, while we were trying to meet a deadline. We were the only two people working on this project, in the middle of rural NM, out of cell range, and having to improvise. He kept making suggestions and I kept explaining why they wouldn't work. Suddenly he point-blank asked me why I said no to everything. I had a moment of clarity where I realized that I didn't even want him to be right, for no good reason except my ego. I apologized, horrified, and have been forever grateful for the wake-up.

After that I started to notice that pattern elsewhere. The best way I've found to interrupt it is to ask myself "what if they're right" and/or "in what way might this person be right that I may not have considered"?

From the website -

> Out of the people I had hired at my last startup:

> 12% of hires where exceptional hires (I would instantly hire again)

> 42% of Hire were good hires. (I wouldn’t hire again but they did a fine job)

> 29% of hires were bad hires. (They didn’t do a good job and were eventually let go)

> 17% of hires were very bad hires (They had a negative effect on the company culture and other staff)

These seem like extremely poor numbers. I haven't hired a ton of people but all of them have been excellent, though some that I was peripherally involved in hiring have been just good. I'm curious what other people feel that their ratio is.