I did consider it, and it was the designed used in the previous version, but I moved away from that because I wanted rigidity around the z axis. the uncontrolled swinging was too hard to compensate for. additionally, now that it can push off the cross where the lines meet, it has a wrist dof that greatly helps in grasping.
How could it go straight up and down? As the robot moves around the room, the anchor for the vertical cable would no longer be directly above the robot.
I assumed the 5th cable would be directly connected to the robot, to lower and raise it straight up and down. So, cables from four corners of the room to the center point where the 5th cable is, and the robot hangs off that 5th cable and can raise/lower itself.
>I had someone write me a personal message about a sensitive topic that was clearly workshopped with AI in an effort to nuance the conversation and not offend me. But the message became impersonal, dispassionate, and disjointed. It had all of the parts, but it didn’t make sense as a whole. I wasn’t interested in reading it, or responding. I would much rather someone be themselves and write with their own voice, or with some passion, even if they can’t quite find the words, or risk offending me.
Only a privileged person can say this. Not everybody is a native speaker or good communicator. As an IT guy somewhere on the spectrum, I have damaged my career on multiple occasions by clumsy writing.
Tangential: We need to invent some kind of personal wireless setting that will signal to strangers that you are open to meeting new people or starting a conversation.
Otherwise, all this technology will totally isolate us.
>The Tenet Cook Forgot: make products you’d be proud to use yourself.
You see, I don't think people like Cook (and the majority of corporate managers) can even tell the difference between good and bad products when they use them.
I am not sure if more regulation is a solution, but the lack of respect for job seekers is a real problem.
And not just with ghost jobs. My recent experience as a job seeker was harrowing - even with large, proud companies. I would pass multiple rounds of interviews with senior/director-level interviewers only to never hear back from the company - even after a direct request for an update or feedback. Just total ignorance. Again, this happened with a FAANG+ company.
In the Netherlands by law you have the right to retrieve any written internal correspondence regarding your interviews as to ascertain it was a fair decision and decision making process.
Side effect of this is also to keep any bias out of the equation and, being on the other side, easier to call out colleagues making inappropriate or downright discriminating comments (which in my experience unfortunately happens everywhere still)
The unintended side effect of this is that HR coaches you to be as vague as possible in responses. I can’t give real feedback because some feedback may seem dissimilar to other feedback and look like discrimination if you blur your eyes.
Isn't the side effect also giving incentive to those companies to just not be honest in internal communication? But do the real conversation via call or different channel?
Unfortunately, many companies have chosen to comply with anti-discrimination laws by not giving any feedback. Nothing is less discriminatory than an empty string.
If you make such request, how can you enforce to get all of the comms? I'm curious, would some government institution step in and audit their mail servers, slack channels, google hangouts and all other channels to obtain all of the information?
The next stage of complaint is actually the local Information Commissioner.
Companies will usually comply with this, because it's very difficult to instruct staff to not comply with the law without leaving any records or risking one of them leaking it. However they will check what the legal minimum is and do that.
If there is regulation, it should be about monopolies in general and not trying to micromanage hiring. Companies behave this way because they are in a position to do so. In a real competitive environment they wouldn’t. Poorly thought through band-aid rules don’t change that, in fact they would almost certainly favour the big monopolies with the worst hiring practices who have big HR departments that can handle and game compliance.
I don't think it's a non-competitive environment, but that the interests are out of alignment. The penalty for the manager who makes a bad hire is a lot worse than the manager who fails to make a hire.
And we also have the same problem that plagues modern life: the glut of choices leading people to think they can do better than they can. The pool is effectively infinite, there must be a better option somewhere. Companies don't hire. Dating has become very hard. Both lie behind very superficial screening gates that do not represent actual value.
I got feedback from FAANG+ once after multiple rounds with director / manager etc.
I just got told I didn't seem "motivated" enough despite spending several rounds / days / hours interviewing and bunch of leetcode questions. Not even that I wasn't skilled or good enough or didn't pass the questions. Pretty sure the last guy just didn't like me for whatever reason.
Definitely one of the As in the FAANG. In fact both the As have terrible recruiting practices. One is a known ghoster and given that you were ghosted after a senior level meeting tells me which one.
I wonder why people still apply to FAANG companies, there is nothing to be won by working for them. Your work has zero impact, you're actively paid to enshittify stuff over making it better, you have horrible bureaucracy within the company, they lay off thousands of people per year so your job never really is secure, all of FAANG is ethically corrupt beyond means. I'd never hire a FAANG employee to be honest, while working there your skill actively declines because all you really do there is play corporate charade and hope not being laid off.
Aside from the fact that you have no real job security anywhere, people take FAANG jobs for money. Both the high pay at the company itself, and the idea that once FAANG is on your resume, it will command the best jobs afterwards too.
I think they have to pay that high because the work sucks so much in reality. That's the equilibrium point between the demand for people to work there, and the supply of people willing to put up with it.
I had good job security doing in house IT for some companies. Never have seen anyone being laid off, could've stayed there for years to come, the stuff I've built was actively being used and made work easier for people. The domain knowledge I gathered even strengthened my job security as it was more efficient to pay me over having to re-train other people. The only risk to my job was me as I left for a startup after a while. Sure, pay wasn't that high compared to FAANG but at least I didn't make peoples life worse while also hating my job.
I'm choosing to leave a job in tech in academia after 15 years.
If I wanted to, I could stay here until I retire (in another 20+ years), barring the complete destruction of the university I work for.
The position I'm moving to is also in academia (this time public sector in the EU), and I'm given to understand that as long as I can make it through the probationary first year, so long as I keep doing a halfway decent job there I can stay there for as long as I want, too. (We will, of course, have to see how true that is!)
Job security does exist; you just have to be willing to leave the Silicon Valley bubble.
As a bright eyed young engineer I worked for a year in FAANG and loved it[1]. Free lunches, all that scale, opportunities to learn, kool-aid, and at that point i truly believed the company cared about making the world a better place [2]. So regarding:
>there is nothing to be won by working for them
As you can see above, not everyone sees it like that. And HR is working hard to pretend you're a big deal and not just a cog. People who read HN are a bit of a bubble in being disillusioned.
>I'd never hire a FAANG employee
Uhh, ok?
[1] but I had enough pride to quit after a year when they pulled off something I was not OK with.
[2] to be fair, I think at that time most employees did
I happen to agree with you, but it's also worth mentioning that solving whatever problem is creating the need to post ghost jobs in the first place would also make posting them unnecessary (presumably insecurity about the company's ability to assess, hire and retain high quality talent.)
But those are very hard, company-specific problems to solve, hence my agreement :-)
Unfortunately, in America, at least, that would be likely to lead to a lot of lawsuits—lawsuits that should be shot down under the SLAPP category, but it takes enough money and time just to respond to a lawsuit that many people would be unwilling to take the risk by posting anything.
It's a multiparty problem. I really wouldn't want to post negative experiences of companies under my and their real name while still looking for jobs elsewhere.
Glassdoor could only possibly be accurate because it was anonymous. Of course, that also makes it easier to fake.
reply