Blind could have been an opportunity for them to get direct and honest insight into how the sausage is made but instead is trolling and leetcode-your-way-to-fang obsessing.
Probably? I mean, if your hiring process is leetcode hazing by these same people, then it is self fulfilling.
That depends on the interview, isn’t it? In my on-site with one of the companies, I was asked hard algorithm questions in four out of five rounds, and then one system design round. I doubt anything related to personality would show up
Why? These companies are like Wall Street, they pay the most, so they attract people who are predominantly interested in money. These kind of people tend not to be the most upstanding.
It's also very useful, if accurate.
At least according to Blind.
Later on, I found unsavory relationship advisement going on, and further than that, outright racism against Indians in particular. None of these comments were downvoted, many encouraged and agreed upon. (EDIT: Not downvoted, criticized, sorry.(
Blind doesn't have downvotes (which could be part of the problem there).
Racism is not illegal and should not be suppressed. It does should also not be encouraged, however.
At the end of he day, people do not have the right to feel good.
> My first look at Blind rated cities to work in by how hot/available women were there (e.g. comments like "SF sucks, you have to settle on dating uglies" or "NYC women are so much hotter than SV women, no contest where to live").
It may be off topic the original post, but is most definitely relevant to the users. Nothing wrong with rating women. People do it all the time. It's about time it is made less taboo.
In the current context of rampant sexual discrimination, there is everything wrong with "rating women". To be very clear, when "rating women" I presume you are talking about the snap judgements made based on stereotypical beauty attributes relating to physical appearance.
The problem with "rating women" in this way is that ranking people according to a very small set of "desirable" attributes neglects or diminishes other very important aspects of what makes a person worth knowing and loving. Appearance becomes a top priority over and against other perhaps more important attributes including loyalty, kindness, and intelligence.
Additionally, "rating women" along such lines reinforces the sense that people are fungible sources of (aesthetic) value rather than worthy individuals in their own right. None of this even touches upon the social and psychological problems that result when people are judged on such a small set of shallow traits.
While people do judge each other based on appearance all the time, such tendencies are to be resisted and questioned because, for one, the standards of physical beauty are well-known to be shaped by the imperatives of advertising which have established that making people feel insecure drives sales.
In fact, it's not taboo to judge people on appearance at all. "Rating women" is a social norm. Not judging women based upon on their appearance is actually the rare exception.
EDIT: add preposition; remove duplicate word; delete extraneous space.
That's not just a problem with "rating women", or even with rating men (which happens a lot more than most people would be comfortable admitting!) for that matter. It's a basic failure mode in human psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect
And yes, marketing and advertising exploit this too. Associating a product with conventionally-attractive people is one way of manipulating us to make us feel better about it.
Sure I'd rather keep most of HN clean of vitriol, but a thread about it? We need to challenge, understand, and dissect these perspectives, not disregard them.