With big companies, it's pretty common. There is probably something about your contact info or education/experience that was auto-flagged as a rejection.
It was a small company you never heard of. But yeah, probably something else. The rejection said based on my experience, answers, and resume. If so, it's disturbing that I had to do this challenge in order to get them to read my resume.
> If so, it's disturbing that I had to do this challenge in order to get them to read my resume.
I'd read that more like "after considering all data points...". I'm sure they read your resume beforehand. Maybe the discussion on their hiring team was "Well, if he pulls out some magic in the coding challenge..."
You never know. It's not helpful to be angry about it, although it's natural and understandable. It's not even necessarily your fault. Maybe they just found someone that would slot into the position easier, just because of differences in their experience, education, or personality.
People often don't act reasonably, and "should" isn't "will". That was part of my point. OP is looking for a reason, and sometimes there isn't a reason that could be supported logically.
You are absolutely right. I guess the point I was trying to make is that companies are not considerate when it comes to a candidate's time. IF after making a candidate go through a coding test or several interviews you still have doubts then don't hire him, simple as that. Nowadays companies/hiring managers/interviewers are used to treating us like crap, sometimes for their own amusement.Expecting candidates to pull out magic in a coding challenge is becoming more and more common, even when they know that a candidate won't be able to pull it off, it's almost as if interviewers enjoy turning people down and watching people struggle during interviews has become a (sadistic)leisure activity for them.
This was just an under-handed marketing move by Lyft to destroy Uber and simultaneously virtue signal their support for immigrants through ACLU donations.
More and more things like this just shows me how many mentally ill people there are in this world.
I feel like our society has devolved into vindictive children. Instead of allowing someone to have their own thoughts and beliefs and debating them like intelligent adults, you try to get them fired or destroy their only source of income because their beliefs differ from your own.
It's the children brigade getting the CEO of Mozilla fired all over again.
I only see this kind of behavior coming from the left. It means I just won't debate people if they disagree with me. I shut them down immediately.
you only see this behavior coming from the left because of your own bias.
How conveniently you forget the entire US Congress right wing refusing to work with the legitimately elected president of the US and building their entire agenda on defeating him because they disagreed with him.
"you only see this behavior coming from the left because of your own bias."
You don't see that these are progressive tactics because of YOUR bias.
I rarely see the same tactics used on the right. You don't see the online hashtag campaigns that harass and abuse anyone that supports the current progressive narrative.
"How conveniently you forget the entire US Congress right wing refusing to work with the legitimately elected president of the US and building their entire agenda on defeating him because they disagreed with him."
Heh. You say this as if Trump is illegitimate. A vast majority of Democrats in power are refusing to work with the current legitimate president and sitting on their hands...like children.
Obama was able to pass Obamacare. The only way this was possible was with the support of the Republicans.
I've never heard of any of these. So the mainstream media has not really picked up on them and they pretty much have no steam on Twitter. Is anyone actually following through?
"These are five examples since November"
These are boycotts of very large companies, which happen all the time. I'm talking more about the harassment of individuals, the trolling of their employers (to get them fired), and the boycotting of small companies. Most of the info leading the charge for these are based on half-truths, libel, and rumors.
The Mozilla CEO was harassed and fired for donating a small amount of money years earlier to a political campaign. He wasn't harassing or being prejudice against anyone and a reporter had to search long and hard to find out about his political donations. I've never seen anyone on the right single out an individual and get them fired over something like this.
This sort of behavior needs to stop and another problem is that nobody will admit it's an actual problem.
We're all wrong about some stuff: cognitive biases are baked into our brains. I mean yes, you're right that the left engages in that, but I definitely see it from both sides because we're all human at the end of the day. The most dangerous people are the ones who don't know what they don't know.
Jeff Bezos normally doesn't really care that that much about other human beings. Why start now?
Working conditions are deplorable in many Amazon warehouses and he has destroyed many small businesses all in the pursuit of raising Amazon's stock price by a few pennies.
He's doing this as a personal vendetta against Trump. During Trump's campaign, he said he would pursue a federal lawsuit against Amazon for their monopolistic tactics.
This is actually something I hoped Trump would do. Amazon has been abusing their online marketplace monopoly for far too long.
If all Bezos cared about was the bottom line then he wouldn't be seeking out ways to so publicly undermine the administration. As you said, Trump already made a threat to Amazon just as a candidate. Now he actually has the power to pursue an anti-monopoly action against Amazon. Even if Amazon and Washington state are successful in their lawsuit, it would be a pyrrhic victory compared to what Trump's Justice Department could do to Amazon.
Why wouldn't the investors like it? Companies license IP to other companies all the time. It actually is a plus for investors because they will see a faster ROI.
Because their product which is based on my base product will have a different name and branding. It won't be affiliated with my product so I'm not sure how it leads to faster ROI. The good thing is that my product will be based by many enterprise companies so will become more stable.
A similar example I can think of is the relation between SQLStream and AWS Kinesis Analytics. Kinesis Analytics is based on SQLStream but people who use AWS don't know it; however SQLStream uses the name of AWS as their client in their website. It's likely that AWS re-branded SQLStream as Kinesis Analytics as a different product and provided it to their user as a managed service.
I've come back to a job after a round of layoffs. My company laid me off and after a month, they realized my manager had lied and actually had another job lined up as they were letting me go. I was the only one that actually knew how the system worked (my manager lied about this too) and they begged me to come back.
10K higher salary and an extra week of vacation later, I was working there again.
The company lasted another year before it folded completely. I only did it because the boss pretty much left me alone and I didn't have anything to do besides maintain the current system that I built during my 5 years there.
I used this opportunity to start my own company because my daily job took me about 20 minutes in the morning. I previously automated most of my daily tasks. Anyone with any tech experience was fired or let go and nobody really knew what I was doing besides keeping the current system running smoothly.
New jobs are always difficult in the beginning. Mostly because you have lots of unfamiliar systems to learn and new coworkers.
The question you should be asking yourself, is why did you quit your old job in the first place? Do you think anything will be different if you go back?
"but most of my time is spent doing mundane stuff. It's important work, but it's extremely dull."
I feel like you have unrealistic expectations. Unless you are in a startup with no senior developers (or senior compared to you) as coworkers, you will be spending the beginning part of any job working on mundane/boring tasks.
As you get more experience with the project (and gain the trust of the more senior developers), you will be given more responsibility.
The same thing may happen at your next job.
But it doesn't sound like you're happy here and you should try to find another job.
I got out of my 'rut' by finding a new job. Then I realized I wanted to work for myself and started my own company. 6 years later, my company is still going strong.
I find this interesting because I just saw a story in my local news about Western Union getting flack because they were making it difficult for certain customers to send money to known terrorist countries. They were called 'bigoted' and 'racist'.
They really can't win here. If they allow anyone to send money anywhere, they get fined by the government for supporting criminals. If they try to make a judgment call, the public gets up-in-arms about it and thinks they are bigoted (and potentially lose customers or get involved in other lawsuits).
Based on the article, it's much simpler than that:
"Fraudsters offering fake prizes and job opportunities swindled tens of thousands of U.S. consumers, giving Western Union agents a cut in return for processing the payments, authorities said."
In other words, it's not that they are "allowing anyone to send money anywhere"; they didn't discipline their agents for taking a cut of known fraudulent transactions.
Um, isn't this describing their regular activity, worded in a way to make ot seem more sinister? Their agents take a cut for processing payments regardless of whobis involved, no?
It's very possible, but the wording said something like, "allowing many agents to take a cut.." so I would read that like it was an additional payment or kickback of some kind.
If it was just part of business, it would have been every agent right?
> Fraudsters offering fake prizes and job opportunities swindled tens of thousands of U.S. consumers, giving Western Union agents a cut in return for processing the payments, authorities said.
I don't see it. I'm reading the actual court documents now, which I found by googling and going to the FTC's website:
I don't see how that can happen. I have few friends that work in WU and every suspicious transaction is checked at few levels by different people. Maybe unless it's not "agents", but somebody higher up. Or WU have different procedures in EU and USA.
> If they allow anyone to send money anywhere, they get fined by the government for supporting criminals.
They could allow the transactions, but secretly support anything suspicious to government anti-terrorist agencies. They wouldn't get called racist because any transactions they block were at the behest of the government. They wouldn't get in trouble with the government because they're handing all their data to them. And customers wouldn't complain they're divulging private data customers people wouldn't know. It's a win-win-win.
Why does it have to be "any suspicious activity", and why "anti-terrorist agencies"? Why not start with "things that are obviously crimes" and "the police"?
The one time I tried sending money from Los Angeles, CA, USA to Portland, OR, USA, I wasn't able to meet the criteria necessary to complete the transaction. Some my friend and I, both US Citizens, raised a red flag. It felt pretty lame, and the person manning the Western Union location couldn't care less about helping me navigate the system. I haven't lost a lot of sleep over this, but I never tried using the service again!
It had something to do with my friend not being able to provide enough information to prove "I'm not a terrorist" to what felt like a pedantic level of satisfaction. I don't remember the specifics.
How is this any different than a company avoiding tax laws by moving its base?