jldl805

"I don't know if you guys are history buffs or not..."

You have ads in your facebook feed? Weird, I'd assume someone who posts on HN and has an opinion on this would also know how to shut that down.

Yes I agree with your summary of the situation. I assumed a phrase like "immaculately designed strategy" would set off your sarcasm sensors but I appear to be mistaken.

This is the best thing I've read all month and I particularly like that the only negative commenter so far confirms the author's characterization of their humor 100%.

"There is no other way" = "There is no Plan B"

Fortunately if we've learned anything from recent history, it's that our initial attempts at a solution are almost always successful and rarely are there setbacks, hiccups, or insurmountable obstacles along the way to the perfect realization of your immaculately designed strategy.

Or due to the emotional context and baggage you bring to the website.

You've summarized all my most important thoughts into two succinct sentences, thank you.

I had this! Third day after my second Pfizer dose. I am very familiar with chest pains through... recreation... and this was a whole nother beast. I was legitimately frightened, even moreso when everything I found said it wasn't a symptom and shouldn't be happening. I did find a 3 month old (at the time) Reddit thread where several other people had commented in the last 24 hours saying they'd found it the same way (maybe a google algorithm effect?).

It cleared up after three days, getting better each day. 34 year old male with no other side effects from either dose.

Or, even better share the data you reference from "this kind of research".

TIL I'm an extremist.

Just wanted to let you know that I read this book on your recommendation and think it's among the best self-help books I've ever read. At least as important as 7 Habits, which was my previous favorite. Thanks for the tip.

We're just problem solving here - the moral assessment of any given solution is each individual's choice to make, pal.

Nah. My point is that most people off the street assume salesmanship is about touting your product effectively. Anyone can talk a big game.

Making people feel heard, and then specifically responding to their pain is the real answer. Yours and many other comments on this page make the same mistake, which is based on a widely-prevalent flawed assumption that is almost universal among the general population.

I have years of experience in high-end retail sales and a subsequent decade of experience in high-dollar niche sales. In all of my jobs my entire life I've worked 100% commission.

Here's the thing both your and the parent's comment are missing: sales isn't about persuasion or communication, it's about listening.

Also the fifth (and most important and effective, IMO) Habit:

Seek first to understand, then to be understood.

Know how I can tell you didn't finish it?

That's honorable of you to bring lives into this planet uninvited just so you aren't a little bored later.

The audiophile analogy is valid, but only because you can be an audiophile chasing brand names or status (and you will probably get it if you spend enough), or you can be an audiophile that seeks out high quality gear without the snake oil.

Same with coffee makers. I would consider myself a coffee snob but I've ditched all the fancy gear and use a $12 pour over device from OXO. That and a basic water kettle will get you world-class coffee for less than the cost of a basic Mr. Coffee unit.

I do agree with you.

I agree with your overall message but just want to say from a sales perspective, there is still a "process" and "data" that guides the overall one on one field work you describe.

It's just about knowing how much activity you need to reach your goal based on past results and forecasted numbers, and then structuring your activity to deliver the required numbers (and the results you are seeking).

Maybe the "term" but the "genre" techno was really born in Detroit. Not a really controversial statement.

Not among people who care it doesn't.

Actually Google is a public corporation, not a private company.

Either I'm doing a bad job communicating or you're doing a bad job understanding.

I'm not saying no human should be involved. I'm saying an excellent human should screen candidates in a phone (or Teams or Zoom or whatever) interview before they are invited to sit across from you at your desk or in a conference room.

If you find yourself sitting across from someone who cannot technically do the job, your step one has failed (and should never fail).

If you don't hire someone because their in-person interview didn't go well, it is social skill (or cultural fit) related.

If that's not the case, reference step one to see that you have an error in who you are inviting for in-person interviews (or your phone screener should not be the person phone screening).

Yes you interview them over the phone in an initial phone screen before you invite them in for an in person interview.

The phone screen should cover lots of technical areas with deep follow up questions and examples.

I work in a specific niche (not coding) and can tell you that I bat .1000 on technical fit... cultural fit cannot be assessed until you meet the person and they meet the team, or at a minimum, hiring manager.

The only thing this tells me is you have an error in your hiring process that is leading you to interviewing people in person that cannot do the job. This should never happen.

I don't recruit new grads so it would never happen. Similar to OP's post, it's almost always a situation where it's painfully obvious to everyone else involved why the person isn't getting hired, but it would be awkward or a waste of time to try to tell the person.

It's also virtually always social skill related... if you weren't up to the task technically, you wouldn't have been asked to interview. The in person interview is normally to decide "do I want to see this person 40+ hours a week for the next 5 years" rather than "can they do the job."

Lots of exceptions obviously but mostly true across the board.

I'm a recruiter and candidates argue 95% of the time. Maybe higher. I only give feedback in very, very selective situations and even then I almost always regret it due to the response. Most people are not calm, rational, dispassionate receptors of critical feedback... especially when there is money and ego at stake.

I can't speak for the person you are talking to but this site has much less tolerance for deviation from cultural norms - which is both a good and bad thing.

Compared to even niche subreddits there is much less room for "freewheeling" (can't think of a better term for it) comments. It has costs but what for what you pay, you gain in a more serious and sober environment.

It is very much a part of your life if you are a member of the military or any number of government agencies. Has been a long time.