Ask HN: Why is hiring so dehumanized, and what can be done?

My main grief is that recruiters in tech has no clue what they are writing in the job listing.<p>They also tend to reach out to you over linkedin and refuse to give you the actual job description unless you give them your email&#x2F;phone-number and CV, which is just infuriatingly arrogant.<p>My hope is that tech job listings stop listing stuff like Must have Experience with XXX and YYY application&#x2F;framework and instead start listing skills needed to be success full in the role. Tech becomes outdated so incredibly fast and we&#x27;re allways learning in our jobs that it&#x27;s kinda futile to list tech instead of skills.<p>Sure Need to know Python, C#, Assembler, that is a skill, but applications and frameworks are something that you can learn, and besides each company use them slightly different so you&#x27;d need internal training anyway.

To answer the title question, because that&#x27;s the subjective experience of commodifying oneself for the market. It&#x27;s specifically the cognitive dissonance resulting in the erroneous assumption that social relations are primarily <i>not</i> economic relations in an environment, more than almost any other, that is evidently the opposite. The sooner that one realizes that one&#x27;s job search is primarily a performance in commodification of labor, the easier it is to get over it and move on.

Applicants could organize in a guild. The members can rate each other in a friendly environment with constructive feedback. Then, the guild knows who are the best matches for a given job.<p>Employers at first communicate with the guild and only have to evaluate 5-10 candidates. All interviewed candidates pool their knowledge about the employer so the next suggestions from the guild will be even better matches.<p>Medieval guilds made sure that craftsmen could be trusted. Programmers can do the same thing.

In one of the startups I worked at, when we really needed to find good people, CEO raised the referral bonus from 3k to 10k, paid 90 days after start date.<p>In another startup, management asked every IC on hiring teams to find at least one potential candidates - every week. Time to find them was allocated into sprints. The referral bonus was raised from 2k to 3k.<p>The first example was more successful from what I remember.

In 2006 when I got my first dev job, I sat down with the lead developer for about half an hour and we largely just had a very friendly and informal conversation talking about how I would hypothetically build things, what software I enjoy using, etc. I very vividly remember talking about how great I thought it was you could do basic math in the Firefox search bar at the time.<p>He left to talk to the owner, came back with a (in hindsight very small) number on piece of paper, and I started that week.<p>When I started at my current gig over a decade ago I had a three-day ordeal of interviews. In person, telephone, full day of in person again. Spoke with at least six different sets of people. Jobs I&#x27;ve applied for in the interim have been even worse.<p>As someone who has been in a hiring position myself, I think that first informal interview tells you way more than any checklist. If you need the checklist items answered, put them on the application. Interviews should be for getting to know the <i>person</i>.<p>I don&#x27;t do hiring these days, but from what I&#x27;ve heard, DEI doesn&#x27;t want us going off pre-approved script at all. I understand where that&#x27;s coming from but it seems like it would do more harm than good.

In my opinion is lack of empathy! Before requesting the interview I usually check the persons work online, e.g., repositories, etc. I personally don&#x27;t find the twitter activity interesting, but some people give that extreme importance. If I&#x27;m in charge of interviewing, and in touch with somebody, that means the person has a very high chance of getting the job, never failed me!<p>The last thing I want is waste the other persons time.<p>It&#x27;s disappointing being interviewed by people who are assh*les, really makes other people feel like sh!t!

I recently interviewed a number of developers for a Typescript front-end job. We received 360+ CV’s but most of them could be rejected in seconds (no developer experience at all) narrowing it down to about 20. We interviewed about half in priority order, and hired 2 <i>really</i> good developers.<p>All we did in the interview was to discuss things they have worked on before, going <i>deep</i> into all the details. Talking about why they decided to implement it the way it was implemented, what the trade offs were, what they would do differently today, the hardest problems they had to solve, how they would have implemented it given different biz constraints etc.<p>No white-boarding, silly puzzle questions, online coding games, or other BS nonsense. Just deep questions about things they claim they have worked on in the past. It works <i>really</i> well. It is easy to identify experienced smart developers by how clear their thinking is and how well they articulate their decisions, problem solving etc.<p>It’s simple. It works. Highly recommended.

It&#x27;s just like dating - have you tried it lately? Dating Apps has made the issue even worse - so &quot;better&quot; hiring platform is not a viable solution either.<p>The quickest hires IMHO are via referrals - but this is sort like arranged marriages&#x2F;dates and it comes with it&#x27;s own set of issues (nepotism etc).<p>I think companies need to have dedicated HR &#x2F; Recruiters (or hire headhunters) to cut down on such frustrations. But the problem is tech hires, unlike construction &#x2F; temp hires require high touch interviews with department heads etc. Add flood of resumes (now that WFH is a thing) and it&#x27;s so difficult to speed up the process since it&#x27;s costly to hire the wrong candidate.

It is tough balance between &quot;humanizing&quot; and trying to be fair and unbiased when reviewing candidates.<p>I think this is where small companies really have a huge advantage over larger companies, and they should be taking advantage of it!

&gt; Applicants must wade through large volumes of job postings, which are often poorly written, and frequently lacking key information which is important to the applicant.<p>&gt; Employers are overwhelmed with large numbers of applicants, most of whom don&#x27;t meet the requested minimum requirements.<p>&gt; Employers are then too overwhelmed to reply to all the applicants.<p>Employers should stop casting such a wide net, then. If you post on a site like monster and say the position is remote then obviously you&#x27;re going to get a lot of applicants. If you&#x27;re not prepared for that you should post locally or tailor your advertisement better.<p>IMO the job postings are often deliberately written that way because the people doing the hiring a) don&#x27;t understand what they&#x27;re looking for (see: &quot;we need 10 years of experience in [technology that was released last year]) or b) they know they need a body but don&#x27;t want to lock that person into a particular &quot;role&quot;. It&#x27;s just another version of &quot;and other duties as required&quot;.<p>The remaining points in your OP can be solved when employers solve the problems in 1-3.

Have the candidate interview with their potential teammates really helps. The interviewer will also be more engaged than if they were interviewing for some other random team<p>I also try to make small talk, have a quick conversation and so on. This has been mostly good except with a couple candidates. They were hasty and basically like ok let’s get to the question<p>It’s so interesting how groomed candidates are with LeetCode and Sys Design videos. Sometimes when I ask anything off course, like a basic question, it’s like a huge curve ball for some people

This isn&#x27;t a fix exactly, but for a long time now the only jobs I ever take are either with people who know me or people who know someone who recommended me. Like a lot of people here I had to randomly apply to all kind of jobs and got rejected for practically everything when I started.<p>So my suggestion would be: think about people you know or could meet and ask them if they like where they work? Are they hiring? Then, if you have a position somewhere you don&#x27;t need to be perfect, but it helps to be memorable.

Work for smaller companies<p>Only &quot;apply&quot; to jobs where you already know at least one person at the company

I’m working on a platform to filter out applications by:<p>1. Geo restriction (when required).<p>2. Skills required in the job (listed by employer). Any resume that don’t meet a percentage of required skills will be notified immediately after uploading the resume.<p>3. Filtering questions. That could be anything from skills, required certifications, ability to start in certain times.<p>It is an attempt though, I don’t know if it will work but to explain the reasons behind the platform:<p>1. The application rate of online jobs is less than 8% due to complicated long forms. Which means employers are missing many talented applicants. See this thread: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=33341263" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=33341263</a><p>To fix, I implemented an easy apply similar to LinkedIn. You only upload the resume, it will be parsed to validate skills.<p>2. With the remote work, there are companies who want to limit the remote to their own country or certain time zones. Writing that in the job description doesn’t stop people from applying. As you mentioned, ghosting is one of the main reasons why candidates apply to as many jobs as possible.<p>To fix, there will be a message saying the job is not available in your region when applying from outside the designated regions.<p>3. The skills filtering will help candidates to understand immediately why they had been rejected instead of just being ghosted. It will help in reducing the number of unqualified applications.<p>4. Filtering questions will be for things that can not be identified in resumes. That could be ability to relocation, having certain certifications, security clearance … etc.

This is unsolvable.<p>As an human you are probably applicable to a multitude of jobs in all different kinds of industries and therefore the sheer process of going through the list to find &quot;the one&quot; is going to prove very difficult.<p>Its not that hiring is inhuman, but unnecessary moats are. Those are there in turn because a large number of people are applying to those same jobs. Combine that with the fact of remote working, you pretty quickly realize that you will get resource management problems no matter what you do.<p>Finally, its also that most people hiring have no actual clue as to whom they would like to hire for the position to begin with. Just as all recruiters don&#x27;t really understand the position they are hiring for.

Hard take which is pretty much unpalatable to HN crowd: If I had a small dev shop, I would put out an hiring ad that says you must drop off your resume in person and we will only hire people from 50 mile radius.<p>Like they used to do in 1970&#x27;s.<p>Not a fan of: 1) Global pool of candidates 2) Leet code bullshit 3) Remote work<p>Fan of 1) Permanent hiree after 3 months of time with us. 2) You will be part of our family, we&#x27;ll build great things together 3) You&#x27;ll get a decision when you visit us. Just drop by, no appointment necessary. We&#x27;ll make time. 4) If you get rejected, we’ll tell you in the most honest way possible. No HR bullshit talk.

This seems counterintuitive, but I wonder if hiring can be more humanized by essentially making firing easier, or &quot;dehumanizing&quot; firing.<p>One big reason that companies go through the lengthy song and dance of multiple tests and interviews in a crazy hiring process with dozens of people is that trying to fire somebody is always a risk, even in places with at-will hiring. You have to worry about severance and other legal requirements, you have to worry about discrimination lawsuits. Additionally, hiring has become so expensive (multiple interviews and tests with multiple teams with multiple candidates) that it&#x27;s kind of a feedback loop that incentivizes a very careful process because you can&#x27;t get it wrong when you spend so much effort on it.<p>What should be a much more common practice is agreeing to quickly hire somebody who has a good resume and passes a basic knowledge interview, and then firing them fairly quickly without severance pay or legal risk if they don&#x27;t work out. If they can&#x27;t hack it in a job (the most fair job interview possible because it&#x27;s literally the job) firing them should be the easiest thing in the world. This could incentivize a much easier and quicker hiring process that should take a day or two, not weeks or more. You might get it wrong a bit more often, but this should be counterbalanced by getting it right sometimes much, much quicker and cheaper.

Part of my job responsibilities is hiring, retention, and unfortunately layoffs.<p>Hiring is only going to get worse in technology related fields.<p>The competition has increased 10x in the last couple months compared to the last year for a single jr - mid developer position at my company. That&#x27;s going from 1000 applications to 10,000 applications.<p>I even created a jupyterhub notebook to do some analysis on the unfiltered resumes over the weekend. I can easily see over half are liberals arts majors who switched careers in the last 5 years via bootcamps or masters programs. The next 25% are are mostly people who were laid off. The final 25% are new graduates with either no experience or an internships.<p>A lot more jr developers basically, I imagine the senior devs are being kept happy, or weren&#x27;t laid off. Yet those are the only people a bunch of our tech teams want to hire . . . .<p>Also yes we filter out a lot of resumes using keywords, but the latest batches of interviews didn&#x27;t go well. So I&#x27;ve been re-evaluating our processes.

Nothing. Dehumanization is the goal for the entire employee lifecycle.

I actually enjoy the Singaporean approach: drop your resume to this address which may be a black hole, but solve this programming puzzle to get a guaranteed response. The programming puzzle is usually relatively easy and can be done in 2 hours.<p>If you&#x27;re applying to jobs, you&#x27;re bound to be doing lots of puzzles anyway, so it&#x27;s just more practice. It filters out the 80% bottom of the barrel and this might mean one less tech interview stage.<p>Heck just give them fizzbuzz straight away and it should filter about 80% anyway.

&gt; Employers are overwhelmed with large numbers of applicants, most of whom don&#x27;t meet the requested minimum requirements.<p>1) I wonder if the problem of being overwhelmed by applicants can be solved in the same way that dating sites work, because they somewhat have a similar issue. Perhaps restrict job seekers from applying to more than X jobs per day or week, like some dating sites do. At the least, this ensures that effort is put into individual applications and people are more selective about applying to jobs they think they have a reasonable chance to get rather than applying to anything they&#x27;re remotely qualified for and playing a numbers game. Everybody will be applying to fewer jobs and can be more conscientious about the process, improving it for all.<p>2) And speaking of minimum requirements, in most cases they&#x27;re not strict absolutes for performing the job. If you&#x27;re going for some hard-core game developer job and you don&#x27;t know C++, yeah that might be a big problem. But if you&#x27;re going for a web-developer job and you haven&#x27;t used one of 6 Ruby gems they listed in their ad, who gives a fuck? You should still apply because you&#x27;re experienced enough to know that your general knowledge is in the ballpark of what they&#x27;re really looking for.

Anecdotally, last year I did loops with Netflix and Google and was incredibly impressed by how they were conducted.<p>The coding questions at both places were not anything I had seen before (despite studying on leetcode), however none of them needed any esoteric tricks or algorithms. Recursion, loops, hashmaps, lists, etc was all that was needed to pass the coding portions.<p>I&#x27;d say the questions would be considered &#x27;hard&#x27; on leetcode, but still only needing fundamental understanding of DS&amp;A. And I was given about 40 minutes.<p>I also had some coding rounds that were 100% practical stuff. Basic &#x27;data munging&#x27; kind of stuff. It was non trivial but again nothing weird or funky.<p>System design rounds were practical and engaging and fun.<p>I think the template is pretty solid, it&#x27;s just most places have poor implementation (and from what I&#x27;ve heard, it&#x27;s very possible to roll poorly at Google and get someone who asks a super weird or challenging question).<p>When I first started studying for interviews, I would absolutely panic with someone watching me, I could barely do a proper for loop. But after enough practice it became fine.<p>Overall the interviews were challenging but NOT what I was expecting, I thought they did a good job of asking unseen questions that tested coding fundamentals.

We have an AI process trying to automate all matching and speed up the process, because we have a lot of candidates... The real problem I find is that the best candidates are not even looking for a new job or applying, so we are currently trying to offer part time opportunity for all open position to see if they are gong to like us...

Humanity is a lawsuit risk, cold algorithmic process is armor.

A lot of this is game theory at play.<p>&gt; 1. Applicants must wade through large volumes of job postings, which are often poorly written, and frequently lacking key information which is important to the applicant.<p>This is nothing new - it&#x27;s been this way for over 20 years. Job postings are not more poorly written than in the past.<p>&gt; 2. Employers are overwhelmed with large numbers of applicants, most of whom don&#x27;t meet the requested minimum requirements.<p>Because many&#x2F;most employers are willing to hire people who don&#x27;t meet the minimum requirements. Or rather, they are sloppy when they made the job posting. Therefore, applicants who actually honor the minimum requirements are at a disadvantage.<p>&gt; 3. Employers are then too overwhelmed to reply to all the applicants.<p>Same reason as above. Employers got themselves into this mess because they are not strict with their minimum requirements.<p>I don&#x27;t have solutions for the whole <i>system</i>, but a <i>given employer</i> can do much to improve things:<p>1. Employer posts accurate postings and are strict about minimum requirements. Applicants who submit applications where they clearly are not meeting the requirements are blacklisted for a year (make this clear up front).<p>2. Do not let people apply to more than 3 positions at once.<p>3. Require a proper cover letter.<p>4. Develop a reputation for good candidate management. If someone applies, <i>they should hear from you in a decent timeframe</i> (even if it is a simple rejection).<p>5. Write in reasonable detail about the interview process. Will it involve Leetcode style questions? Etc.<p>Most applicants will just not apply to you, but that&#x27;s fine. The key to making it work is step 4. As an example, I almost never include a cover letter, because it consumes a lot of my time, and I discovered that over 90% of openings that have an option for a cover letter <i>never read them</i>. If I&#x27;m submitting a cover letter, I want a strong commitment that it will be read.

The cause of most issues with hiring today is because of technology. Back in the good old days, you&#x27;d turn to something like the newspaper or a corkboard with job postings, or you&#x27;d work with your school&#x27;s career services to find a job. Then you&#x27;d go to the place in person, call them on the phone, or send your resume through the mail. Then at the end of an interview or two, they&#x27;d tell you on the spot if you were hired. It was a good and honest way with natural barriers of entry to do hiring.<p>So to answer your question, OP, we can fix it by going back to using want ads in the paper and physical correspondence for the entire process.

From a hiring perspective there are tools available.<p>I work for a startup that is selling a CRM to addresses all of those pain points. We have many large customers and were recently valued &gt;1B.<p>We have several competitors that make the same sort of thing.<p>The point at when our product makes sense cost wise is apparently 8+ recruiters so that certainly excludes a large number of smaller companies.<p>The solutions range from boring (e.g. CRUD things, advanced search, campaign management) to fancy (e.g. automation, AI things).<p>Our approach is basically to reduce &#x2F; automate as much as possible to free up as much time for the recruiter to do actual human things.

Was talking to an Uber driver about this, funnily enough.<p>Apparently it&#x27;s very common for applicants to just spam their resume out to every employer, since there&#x27;s no cost to do so.<p>If it were standard practice to implement some kind of hurdle, so that the applicant would have to spend an hour of their time to get a resume in front of a human, then there would be a lot less resumes to sift through and therefore a lot more time that could be given to each one by the employer.<p>Another commenter mentioned having to drop off resumes in person, but I suspect something as simple as this could have a huge impact on spam.

This problem has been attempted to be solved by software engineers or MBAs -- not people with humanities degrees. Behind every weird convoluted process is a batch of CEOs who don&#x27;t know what they&#x27;re doing besides copying their neighbor.<p>I agree with the commentary about guilds, unions, etc. I&#x27;m self-taught and would appreciate the legitimacy that these groups could offer through testing&#x2F;training&#x2F;merits etc. By relying on specialist organized groups you&#x27;re abstracting the non-human issues from the humans themselves.

A question for those who are hiring: how much do cover letters actually matter? How much of a setback is not submitting one (when it&#x27;s optional)?

Hiring is VERY much still humanized.<p>The vast majority of jobs go unposted. Friends get friends work. In the last seven days I’ve had three loose acquaintances ask me if I knew of engineers and designers looking for work in three different countries.<p>The key to always be at the top of people’s lists is: 1. Be excellent at your job. 2. Be kind and interested in other people’s problems. 3. Say “hi” when you don’t need anything.

The biggest issue just seems to be employer expectations.<p>Elaborate and lengthy interview processes have become normal in a number of industries, along with high rates of rejecting candidates.<p>The two natural consequences are people apply for more jobs, anticipating the high rate of rejection, and the people doing interviews get tired of how many they have to do.

IMO none of OP&#x27;s points are the one thing <i>really</i> wrong with (dev&#x2F;tech) hiring.<p>The absolutely grueling, pointless, insane interviews processes are the lion&#x27;s share of problems in this field. To the point that its an industry of its own, with Leetcode and the likes. Its pathetic, inefficient and just in terrible taste.

Recruitment has become alike online dating. You all think you&#x27;re so smart yet the matching mechanisms every time end up with the same pathological hopeless frustration. Watch the chaos burn, hop into the downward spiral.

It has and will always be dehumanizing. At the end of the day you&#x27;re simply begging someone to pay you less than you&#x27;re worth. Either flip the script or join &#x2F;r&#x2F;antiwork.

What do you think of Hired.com? It may not be perfect but seems to solve a few of these issues.<p>All of these problems exist because we are human, so I’m not sure how it’s become dehumanized.

I just call a recruiter. Then I don’t have to wade though the mountains of crap. They present a nice short list of listings from companies they have personal experience with.

This may seem obvious, but... start with fixing #1 on your list?

Using all of these hiring tools is the issue.<p>They didn&#x27;t work 20 years ago, still don&#x27;t work, however interviewing someone like they&#x27;re a person, asking questions, finding their passion, that has had 100% return for me and my companies.<p>Word of mouth has been the best way I&#x27;ve been able to hire a lot of really skilled people. My team members have told me many times that I&#x27;m the best manager they&#x27;ve ever had.<p>It&#x27;s because I don&#x27;t do anything the way you&#x27;re supposed to.<p>Try being a place worth working for and you&#x27;ll see skilled people show up, and they know how to get ahold of you since they&#x27;re highly skilled and motivated.

At my current employer there were two or three interviews of 1 hour each and no code test. It felt like a breeze like anybody off the street could get this job with excellent incentive pay. It turns out they are highly selective and interview frequently selecting almost nobody. The most important quality is personality, things like honesty and humility.<p>I have been writing software for over 20 years and probably interviewed at two dozen places before moving in with the current employer. Here is what I have learned:<p>* Don’t be awesome. Employment normalizes to a bell curve. Awesome is a less compatible outlier. If you want to be awesome write software outside of work as a hobby and write about the things you learned.<p>* Be selective. If you are confident in your skills and experience (realistically, not a Dunning-Kruger fantasy) you can afford to be less desperate about who you will work for. High pay is great but maximize for emotional fulfillment.<p>* Vanity is for the fashion industry. Software is about automation. Many developers never see the distinction. They try to make things into something they aren’t and are miserable and low performing as a result. Conscientiousness is negatively correlated with intelligence so smart people frequently fail hard at this and cannot see it.<p>* The qualities that are most well rewarded in employee assessments are helpfulness, honesty, and writing. These take time and deliberate action. It also means maximizing mutual respect but simultaneously don’t shy away from hard truths or disagreements.

Lawsuits. That&#x27;s why. If you start to provide feedback, you would have to run it through a lawyer.

You don&#x27;t want it to be humanized, because then you&#x27;d end up hiring losers like me.

in order of impact<p>1. market saturation, everyone and their dog is a developer now<p>2. infiltration and appropriation of hiring process by HR&#x2F;&quot;Tech Recruiters&quot;<p>3. cargo culting of interview process

I&#x27;ve thought on this for a bit and I think it&#x27;s because the applicant tracking systems (ATS) (Greenhouse, Lever, Breezy, etc.) are built for the employer, not the applicant.<p>This one-sided process is dehumanizing due to a lack of visibility and transparency of the process. Inconsistencies in the process develop when the hiring managers are responsible for too much and just let things slip. I&#x27;m of the opinion that increased automation could actually make the process feel more humanizing.<p>Here&#x27;s my ideal state I&#x27;ve envisioned in a platform. I&#x27;m not in a position to explore this right now, but I&#x27;d love to chat with someone who is.<p>1. Employers should be forced to define their applicant funnel stages. Each stage, including the initial application, should be associated with an expected timeline and an automated message.<p>2. Rejection types and corresponding automated messages should all be set up front. Standard picks would be &quot;Did Not Meet Requirements&quot; (location, sponsorship, etc.), &quot;Bad Fit (Resume Review)&quot;, &quot;Bad Fit (Screening)&quot;, &quot;Bad Fit (Post-Interview)&quot;, &quot;Did Not Respond&quot;, and &quot;Position Filled&#x2F;Closed&quot;.<p>3. Applicants should have a dedicated portal where they can see the status of their application. It should show the entire funnel, their current status in that funnel, and the expected timeline based on their position in the funnel. It should even show details like who has viewed your application, when, and how many times. Additionally, all communication between the applicant and the employer should be shown here in a consolidated chat view.<p>4. When an employer moves the applicant from one stage to the next (kanban style) the applicant automatically receives a message with clearly defined steps to engage with the new stage. This should include scheduling links, project uploads, etc.<p>5. Stage timelines should be treated as SLAs. Employers can set up automated reminders to ensure they meet their SLA timeline for each candidate. If the employer doesn&#x27;t meet their SLA, the situation should be handled based on automated rules. If the SLA isn&#x27;t met due to lack of response&#x2F;scheduling from the applicant, automated processes can be put in place to follow up or close out the application. If the SLA isn&#x27;t met due to lack of employer interaction, the candidate gets the choice to let their application expire (incentivizing employers to be on time) OR the candidate can be automatically moved to the next stage (if feedback is present).<p>6. Using all of this information, applicants should be able to see an employers average response time, timeline adherence, etc.<p>7. When the position is closed, all applicants currently in the funnel should receive the appropriate rejection message.<p>8. Through (hopeful) economies of scale, applicants would eventually be able to track multiple applications through a single portal on their side.<p>If you want to get extra dicey, you could have it where applicants are also able to see team comments&#x2F;feedback so employers are forced to be very structured about their feedback and there are fewer rejections without a shared understanding. I sympathize with both sides here.<p>--- I&#x27;m not a saint - I&#x27;ve created my fair share of bad candidate experiences. But it&#x27;s never out of malice. It&#x27;s always from bad process or tooling. Would love to hear thoughts on this idea.

This is just capitalism being capitalism. It takes the life out of everything. We&#x27;re just machines who produce endless streams of dollars and trash for the parasitic capitalist ruling class. It&#x27;s one big pyramid scheme.<p>All of this is designed to let you know that you are not in control of your own labor. Sure you can decide which capitalist to let own you for a time, but that&#x27;s most people&#x27;s only option. The few people who do make it on their own are used as propaganda to convince you that if you just put in extra work and make extra profit for a capitalist, you might make it someday too! &quot;Just keep working harder and ignore the fact that you can afford less and less each passing year. It&#x27;s all those lazy people who want workplace democracy who are to blame for the record-breaking profits the capitalists rake in every year&quot;.<p>The fix is stop using an economic system with a hierarchy of parasites embedded in it&#x27;s design. It&#x27;ll take work and it won&#x27;t happen overnight, but some of us are already getting started because there is no future under Capitalism other than slavery.

I&#x27;ve been sent this job description five times in the past day. I can&#x27;t begin to understand what hiring process gives rise to a list of 34 requirements. How many people does this describe? Somewhere between 0 and 1, I figure.<p>-----<p>• 20+ years&#x27; experience in BI and Analytics with 8+ experience in data science<p>• Degree in an analytical field (e.g., Computer Science, Engineering, Mathematics, Statistics, Operations Research, Management Science). Any Data Science Certification and Project Management Certification will be an added advantage.<p>• Leverage data and business principles to solve modern devices, real estate modernization and network infrastructure problems.<p>• Ability to translate business requirements into technical project plans.<p>• Manage&#x2F;develop strategic planning for a variety of key projects.<p>• Onsite customer interaction and co-ordinate with onsite data scientists.<p>• Extensive experience in project management &amp; delivery of Data Science Model for actionable insights.<p>• Industry experience in Data analytics&#x2F;BI, Data modelling and visualization, Optimization, and statistics.<p>• 5+ years of Scripting with one of these languages (R, PYTHON).<p>• Ten or more years of overall IT&#x2F;DBMS&#x2F;Data Store experience.<p>• Three or more years of experience in, big data and data visualization and handling of 10 Petabyte of data per month<p>• Drive programs&#x2F;projects from project initiation through delivery.<p>• Responsible for data cleaning and developing various Data science models using R and Python. Provide insights using the various modelling technique like classification, Regression, RNN model, XGBoost, Random Forest, Decision Trees with association rules, Ensemble Learning etc<p>• Experience in implementing A&amp;I solutions using NLP, Luis, Machine Learning and Deep Learning<p>• Responsible for building end to end pipelines for Machine learning and data science model.<p>• Prior experience with Teams, Modern devices, real estate and networking infrastructure services and&#x2F;or data analytics projects preferred.<p>• Strong experience in visualization and storytelling to present to business<p>• Expert in querying and analyzing big data using Kusto, Scope Scripts<p>• Experience working with unstructured big data (Hadoop and&#x2F;or Cosmos)<p>• Experts in advanced Excel functions (e.g., creating formulas, pivot tables) and Power BI<p>• Prior knowledge of data modelling and processing techniques for big data systems<p>• Solid understanding of BI and data solutions, including Power-pivots, cubes, and data marts.<p>• Self-motivated, agile and driven to think out-of-the-box<p>• Ability to influence diverse audiences and build strong partnerships with stakeholders<p>• Ability to work independently or to manage a virtual team that will research innovative solutions to challenging business problems.<p>• Ability to collaborate with partners and drive analytic projects end to end,<p>• Superior communication skills, both verbal and written<p>• Attention to detail and data accuracy.<p>• Business reporting<p>• Experience with writing requirements as features or user stories<p>• Ability to be a self-motivated team player.<p>• Possession of excellent oral and written communication skills<p>• Possession of excellent teamwork and interpersonal skills<p>• Experience with Agile tools<p>-----