Just look at the comment above mine: "booo on any company that". Some people will perceive his rejection as bad hiring practices on Codecademy's part.
Every comeback story needs a bad guy that rejects or pushes down the hero before they rise. That's what makes this post interesting.
It's certainly not the content; creating a web app of stitched together NPM packages isn't exactly a major challenge these days. Especially if you're copying something else feature-by-feature.
> Some people will perceive his rejection as bad hiring practices on Codecademy's part.
FTR, I have no opinion for or against Codecademy.
Whether it's a bad or good hiring practice depends on what you think of this guy. The information on whether any company hires or rejects a certain applicant is not a trade secret. If you read this and think, "this guy's a douchebag," then yes, the company looks sane and reasonable, the opposite of bad. If you read it and think, "this guy is perfectly reasonable," then yes, the company looks bad.
This poster isn't saying anything about whether Codecademy is good or bad, they're just stating the facts, which were created as a result of the company's hiring decisions. If the facts make them look bad, that's on the company for making the choices they did. If they make them look good, the same applies. Again, I have no horse in this race.
They're stating their projected version of the facts. It's the narrative as they see it. Important details could be missing.
Suppose you and I made a few attempts to start a company together and it didn't work out. Then I went off on my own as a solo founder and got seed funding. Then imagine I made a blog post titled "I tried to start a company with ironmagma 3 times and failed, so I became a solo founder instead and succeeded".
> Again, I have no horse in this race.
There's no race? Just commentary. It's an interesting discussion IMO.
Okay, but in that sense of projection, all stated facts are projected versions of the facts. In your opinion, should we just not discuss our experiences with companies at all, since the descriptions will be mere projections of what actually happened?
> In your opinion, should we just not discuss our experiences with companies at all, since the descriptions will be mere projections of what actually happened?
I don't think I can answer that question without more context. It largely depends on the situation.
In this case he could have simply omitted the name of the company:
> I was rejected by <insert succinct description of what these coding tutorial sites are> three times, so I built my own
He's sharing the same story without throwing jabs at a particular company. I could have done the same in my above example with the same result:
> I tried to start a company with someone 3 times and failed, so I became a solo founder instead and succeeded
--
IMO it comes down to professional etiquette. Don't broach muddy topics in public because the audience doesn't have enough context to see the complete picture. It's sort of like airing your dirty laundry in a public restaurant.
> He's sharing the same story without throwing jabs at a particular company.
I would argue it’s not the same story. He wanted to join this other company but couldn’t, which means that his product or at least personage is going to be different in a way that is irreconcilable with Codecademy. They are thus his direct competitor, which is extra information conveyed by this title.
> the audience doesn’t have enough context to see the complete picture.
No one has enough context to see the complete picture, though. The logical progression of this is, “don’t talk about things in general,” which I rather fundamentally disagree with. If someone is unhappy, that can be a good motivator for a story. The same is true for happiness IMO, by the way.
