Yeah, for this to work (as with so much else in society), there has to be a shared understanding of how it works and the expectations for all parties:
Cyclist: Pass on left, with voice or bell warning, with adequate distance and not too much faster than the pedestrian. Ride single file except if nobody else is ahead of you or overtaking you.
Pedestrian: Stay to the right and expect cyclists on your left. Don’t make sudden moves left or right. Only walk side by side if there’s enough trail width for someone to pass you while there’s oncoming walkers or cyclists.
yeah in this case it’s me and the dog taking up a normal amount of space. there is plenty of space for cyclists to pass me on the left if they’re single file (the pavement is probably… 10 feet wide?) and honestly I don’t even care (that much) in this case if they ring a bell or not. It’s extremely tight if there are two of them side by side passing me and the dog.
about 5% of the time I’ll get someone who rings and yells out “on your left, four bikes” or sometimes if it’s a big group the last guy will let me know. But this is rare on the paved paths.
It’s basically the opposite on the wild trails, almost all of them are pretty considerate.
lmao. I applied to some job at some no name place. Indeed (yeah) prompts me and says “this company requires completing an ‘assessment’”. For hilarity’s sake I clicked on it.
I answered stuff like that honestly and got a great culture fit once, but it’s one of those things where both kind of apply. so then the logical next q is to ask well what are they looking for?
No one sane will want to work at a place where they think its appropriate to make people do this, this is beyond nutsoland, so much so I want to look into them for the lulz. Maybe tomorrow.
And no I didn’t notice to start that it was 67 questions.
When I was looking for work there were these ads for “such and such a role for 120K” non-development roles. I applied for one and the first round was an IQ test. We disagreed on what a passing score was.
I always answer those things honestly. If they want to weed out anyone remotely like me I gratefully volunteer to be weeded out. I’ve had a few bad jobs in my life and I’d never do another one.
Honestly having been on the hiring side of the table now I can say that the whole process of hiring is super super hard. I’m not convinced I’m any good at it tbqh.
there’s no evidence they weed out anything in particular, they’re total voodoo. What they are is a huge red flag that management is a bunch of fucking idiots.
There’s one thing those tests are pretty good at… figuring out if the employee is any good at telling management what they want to hear. I’ve always interpreted them as being about how compliant you are more than anything else.
Which is exactly why I am brutally honest on them. We aren’t going to start a working relationship with me lying to you about who I am. I’m straight up cooperative when I think what we’re doing is essentially correct to the needs of the business… And when I figure out there’s a step I can skip that improves my productivity (and thus my pay because I get paid for units of productivity not units of time and never will) without increasing risk I 100% will. And if you don’t like that you shouldn’t hire me.
Man typing this out makes me really glad I’ll probably never interview for another job. Interviewing people for jobs is already my least favorite part of my role lol. I actually high key hate the entire employer-employee relationship. I always knew I was a terrible employee, but the more experience I get with ‘leadership’ the more I think my problem is with the whole structure of the thing.
I dunno. I don’t have the largest sample size, but for the people I’ve interviewed (usually for people in my role but for other territories, or for some roles adjacent to mine), it’s been suuuuuuuuper obvious within about 2 questions (“Why do you want to work here?” and “Tell me your favorite scientific story from your prior work,”) who’s going to be good and who’s not, and that’s borne out over years of hiring the good ones. Perhaps it’s just that I have the luxury of being in a position that requires both particular technical expertise as well as customer-facing professionalism, but it’s obvious when people have them, and obvious when someone lacks one or both.
what I mean is when you have a pile of qualified applicants, there is very little to indicate that interviewing can actually predict who will be an A+ performer and who will be a total dud. Part of the problem is that you almost never get feedback on the people you don’t hire. There’s also a lot of evidence that the “data-driven” techniques + brainteaser interview popularized by (e.g.) google does not have any impact on success rates (e.g. people hired under these regimes roughly performed the same as regular interviews).
I have come across a couple of people who truly seemed like savants and just had uncanny judgement. One guy on my team literally predicted how good candidates would do with an insane amount of accuracy (but again, we don’t know how accurate he was about the ones we passed on or who passed on us), but of course he couldn’t tell us how he knew, it was just gut instinct.
one thing that DOES have good predictive power: recommendations
the problem with recommendations is that they basically reinforce monoculture
hiring managers will overrely on recommendations mostly because they are much more likely to produce good performers, and because their headcount is such a limited resource. Individual hiring managers can’t afford to hire 100 people and then keep the 10 that are the best performers. If they could, hiring a more diverse set of people would probably end up producing a better overall team, but when you only get one headcount a quarter, you have to make it count and you would rather go the route that is 90% likely to get you a B player than the route that might get you an A player but also might get you a total dud.
The “I’m a human” test where you have to click the boxes with traffic lights but two boxes just barely have traffic lights in them FUCK YOU DIE DIE DIE
As someone who has done a decent amount of hiring, I can state to a certainty that the only thing an interview is good for is weeding out the crazies. Beyond that it won’t tell you jack shit about a person or whether they will be good at the job you are hiring them for.
