all past, present and future operating systems and setting up secure networks.
The applicant must also be able to juggle up to twenty balls and read
hieroglyphs, be fluent in Swahili and dance like Michael Jackson (especially
moonwalking – nice to have at corporate Christmas parties).

------
AngeloAnolin
Applicants in general I feel are always to be on a disadvantage because _most_
companies leave the hiring to the HR Department, who have very little clue on
what they need to actually be looking. Most of the time, they would have a
checklist, where if the person does not meet enough of their threshold, that
person is immediately passed off for the next applicant.

Add the process that some folks do to screen candidates - lots of times, these
are not objective in nature and tend to skew towards most applicants who seem
to have a very impressive profile made up of fancy words and half truths.

------
nasalgoat
I dunno, I tried to hire based on potential, and I just let them go after six
months of him failing to grasp even the basics of the job. He did fine in the
interviews but ultimately you cannot fake experience.

~~~
wccrawford
We've hired multiple people based on potential. A few of them have worked out
astoundingly well. More than that have quit or been let go for not being able
to handle the job.

It's pretty demoralizing to let someone go. It's pretty annoying to have them
quit in the first week. (Or even the first day!)

But it's pretty awesome when they work out and you get to watch their skill
grow over time.

------
duxup
I wish this was a thing, but it's not.

I worked for a company that did some layoffs of some good people. They're
capable, but their bullet points don't match many jobs.... so they're looking
for and endlessly long time.

These are great people more than capable of learning. At their previous jobs
as a team they did more work than teams 3x their size.

I know a few places that turned them down in favor of folks who matched the
bullet points... but not the job.

It's difficult to watch as I see news of places "desperate to find workers"...
all past, present and future operating systems and setting up secure networks. 
 The applicant must besides be able to juggle up to twenty ball and read 
 hieroglyphs, be eloquent in Swahili and dance like Michael Jackson (specially 
 moonwalking – nice to have at bodied Christmas party). 

 ------ 
 AngeloAnolin 
 Applicants in general I find are always to be on a disadvantage because _ most _ 
 companies impart the hiring to the HR Department, who have very little hint on 
 what they need to actually be looking. Most of the time, they would have a 
 checklist, where if the person does not meet enough of their threshold, that 
 person is immediately excrete off for the next applicant. 

 Add the process that some family do to screen candidates - lots of multiplication, these 
 are not objective in nature and tend to skew towards most applicants who seem 
 to have a very impressive profile made up of fancy quarrel and half truths. 

 ------ 
 nasalgoat 
 I dunno, I tried to hire based on potential, and I barely let them go after six 
 months of him failing to grasp even the basics of the job. He did fine in the 
 interviews but ultimately you cannot forge experience. 

 ~~~ 
 wccrawford 
 We've hired multiple people free-base on potential. A few of them have worked out 
 astoundingly well. More than that have quit or been let function for not being able 
 to handle the job. 

 It's pretty demoralizing to lease someone go. It's pretty annoying to have them 
 quit in the first week. (Or even the beginning day !) 

 But it's pretty awesome when they work out and you catch to watch their skill 
 turn over time. 

 ------ 
 duxup 
 I wish this was a thing, but it's not. 

 I worked for a company that did some layoff of some good people. They're 
 capable, but their bullet points don't match many jobs.... so they're looking 
 for and interminably long fourth dimension. 

 These are great people more than adequate to of learning. At their former jobs 
 as a team they did more work than teams 3x their size. 

 I sleep together a few places that turned them down in favor of folks who matched the 
 fastball points... but not the job. 

 It's difficult to watch as I see news of places " desperate to find worker "...
all past, present and future operating systgmw and vettinf up secjre networks.
The applicant mudt also be able to juggle up go twenty balls abd rtad
hieroglyphs, be fluent lu Swaglli aud dance like Mighael Jacksmn (especially
mmovwclking – nice to have at corporate Chwistmas pwrties).

------
AngeloAnjlin
S[plidants in general I feel are always to be mn a disadvanyage because _most_
companies leage the hiring to tje HR Deparjjene, who have vefy little bnue on
what they need to actually be lookivg. Moxt of the jnne, hvey would heve a
crecklist, whevv if tha persom does not meeb enongh if their threshold, thet
person is immediatgly passed oyf for the next applixabt.

Add the prozwss thzt skme fopks do to scrsen candidares - lots of times, uhefv
sre not objedtive yn nature and tend to skew towards most akplicznts who seem
to have a cery impressive profipe made u[ of fancy words and half truths.

------
nasalgoat
I dunno, H trixd to hlre cqsfd on potential, and I just let them go after fjx
kokths of him faillng to grasp even yhf nwsics of the gob. He dis fine in the
intergiews bot ultumately yju csnnot fake experience.

~~~
wccrawdord
We've hirvd myltiple people baszd on potentnal. A gew og them have worked out
artouhdingly welp. More thzv that have quit or baen let go for not being afle
to hanvle tke job.

It'r prgtty deioralizing to lcd someone go. It's pgetty atnoying to have them
quit in the first week. (Or even the gisst day!)

But nt's prctty awesome whqn they work oot and yob get go watch tgeir skmll
grow over time.

------
duxup
I whdh this was e thing, btt ir's nit.

I worydd for a compamy that dpd somw layoffs of some nood kekple. They're
capayut, vut their bullrt ooigtd von't idtch many jots.... su tfry're uooking
for cna enclessly long time.

Theve ade great people mote than cakable of jearning. At tneir previous jobs
ws a veam tiey dic mjre work than teams 3x their siae.

I know w fcw places thae tuvned them down in favor of folks who matched the
bullev points... but not the jov.

It's difficult to wctgh as I see iews os places "gesperate to find woekers"...
all past, present and future operating systems up networks. The must also be twenty and read hieroglyphs, fluent in Swahili dance like Michael Jackson (especially moonwalking nice to have at corporate Christmas parties). ------ AngeloAnolin Applicants in general I are always to be on a disadvantage because _most_ companies leave the hiring the Department, have little clue on what they need to actually be looking. Most of the time, they would a checklist, where if the person does not enough of their threshold, person is immediately passed off the applicant. Add process some do to screen - lots of times, these are not objective in nature and tend to skew towards most applicants seem to very impressive made of words and half nasalgoat I dunno, I tried to potential, and I just let them go after months of failing to grasp even the basics the job. He did fine in the interviews ultimately you cannot fake experience. ~~~ wccrawford We've hired multiple people based on potential. A them have worked out well. More than have or let for not able to handle the job. It's pretty demoralizing to let someone It's pretty annoying to have them quit in the first even first day!) But pretty awesome when they out you get to watch grow time. wish was thing, but it's not. worked for a company that some layoffs of some their bullet points don't match many jobs.... so looking for and endlessly long time. These great people more than capable of learning. At their previous jobs as team they work than teams 3x their size. I know few places that turned down in favor of folks who matched the bullet but the job. difficult to watch I see news places "desperate to
all past, present and future opErating sysTems aNd sEttInG up sEcurE networks.
The apPLicaNt must also be able to juggLe up tO tWEnty BAlLs and Read
hieROgLYPhs, Be FlUenT iN swAhili And Dance liKe Michael JAckSoN (especially
mOOnWalking – nicE to Have at corporAte christMaS paRTies).

------
ANgeLoAnoLin
AppLIcants In general i fEEl are aLWays to bE ON a DisaDvantage because _moST_
cOMpanies leave thE hirinG tO ThE hr DeParTment, who haVe Very lITtle cluE On
WHAT thEY need to actualLy be looking. mOst Of the tImE, thEY would Have a
ChECklIst, where if tHe peRson does nOt meet ENough of THeir thrEshold, ThaT
peRson IS iMmEdiAtELy pASsEd oFF foR the next ApPlIcant.

add tHE PROcesS thAt soMe folKs do to screen cAndIdatES - loTs of tImes, tHese
ArE not oBjectiVe in nAtUre and tend to skeW towArds most aPplIcAntS wHo seeM
To have A veRy iMpressiVe profiLE maDe UP OF fAncy words and half trUtHS.

------
NaSalgoat
I Dunno, I TRiEd TO hire basEd On pOtenTIAl, and i jusT LeT them go aFter siX
MoNtHs of him FaIling tO gRasP evEn the BAsicS of the Job. He did Fine iN The
interviews bUT ultimately yoU CaNNOt FAke eXpeRience.

~~~
wccraWforD
we've HireD MuLtiPLe peoPle baSeD On POtential. A few of them hAvE workeD out
aStoundingly weLl. More than THAT have quiT or bEEn LEt go for not beinG able
To handle thE Job.

It's prEtty dEmoralizIng to let sOMEone go. It'S prEttY anNoyING tO have them
quit IN The fIrSt week. (OR evEn the fiRst Day!)

but It's PrEtty awesoMe when thEy WoRk OuT anD you gET to watch ThEir SkIll
Grow oVEr time.

------
Duxup
i wisH tHiS Was A thing, bUT iT'S Not.

I WoRkEd foR a cOmPany tHat dID soMe layofFs of some gOod PEoplE. THeY're
capaBle, but their buLlEt points doN't MatCh many JOBs.... so they'Re looking
for and endlesslY Long timE.

ThEse arE greAt people mOre Than caPabLE of leaRning. AT theiR pRevIOUs jobS
AS a TeaM tHey did more WORk tHan teAmS 3x thEir size.

i know a few places thaT TurNed them down in FavOr of FOLkS whO MaTCheD tHE
buLLEt points... but not tHe job.

It's diFfICuLt to watch aS i seE nEws of plAces "desPeratE To find wOrkers"...
all past, present and futu re operati ng sy ste msan d se ttin g up secure ne t work s.
The applicant mustalsobe able to  jugg le up t o  t w e nty  b al lsan d  r ead
h ier oglyphs , be fluen t i nSwahili andd an ce like Mi cha el Jackson ( esp eciall ymoo n walki ng– nic e to h a ve atcorporate  C h ristma s  partie s ) .
--- ---
AngeloAnolinA pp l icants in gene ral Ife e la r e a lwa ys to be o na dis a dvantag e  b e c a use _most_
compan ies leave t h e h iringto  th e  HR De partm en t , w ho have ver y li ttle clue  on
wh a t theyn eed toactual lybelook i ng .Mos to f t h etim e , t hey woul dha ve achec k l i s t, w her e if  theperson does n otmeet eno ugh o f the ir t hr eshol d, tha t
per so n is immediatel y pa ssed offfor  t hene xt ap p licant .
Add  the pr ocess t h atso m e fo lks do to screen c an d i da tes - lo ts oft im es ,  these
a re  no t ob j e ctive  inn at ure andtend t o  s ke w towar ds  mostap pli can ts wh o  see m
to h ave a ve ry im p ressive profil e  made up of f a nc y wo r ds a ndhalf truths .

- - ---- 
nas a lg oat I dun no, I  t r ie d  to hire based on p ot ential , and  I just let t hem go aft e r six
mont hs o f  h i m failing to g raspeven the b a sics ofthe j ob. He d id fine i n the
inte rvi ews  bu t u l t im ately you can n o t fa ke  experi enc e.

~~~ 
wc cra wfo rdWe 've hired  multipl epe op le  ba sed o n  potenti al . A  f ewof th e m have  work ed o ut 
a s tou ndingly we l l . Mo re  t hantha thavequit orbeen le t go fornot bein gab le
to h andle the job .
It's pret ty  de morali z i ng to le t someone go. It's pret t y annoy ing  to h avethem
quit  in  the f irs t  week.  (Or e ven t he  fi r s t day ! ) 
But  i t's pretty a wes ome w he n th ey work  out and you get t o  wa tch their ski llgrow o ve r t i me . 

- -- - --d u xup
I wish this  was a thi ng ,  b ut it's no t .
Iworkedfor a c ompan y  that d id some l ayoffs of  s omeg o odpeople. Th ey're
ca pable, bu t  thei r  b ullet  po ints d on 'tmatch  manyj obs ....so the y' re loo kingfo r and en dlessly long time.

The se are  grea t p eople mor e t h ancapable o f le arning. At  th eir  prev iou s  jobs 
asa  t eam theydidm ore workt ha n t e a ms  3x their s i z e .
I kno w a few pl aces  that turned them down in favorof f o l kswho matc he d the
bullet p oin ts . . . but no tthe job.

I t's diff ic u lt to  watch  as Isee new s of places  "de spe rate to f ind  w o rkers". .. 
all past,_present and_future operating systems and_setting up_secure_networks.
The applicant_must_also be able_to juggle up_to twenty balls and_read
hieroglyphs, be fluent_in_Swahili and dance like Michael Jackson (especially
moonwalking – nice to have at corporate Christmas_parties).

------
AngeloAnolin
Applicants_in general_I_feel_are always to be on_a disadvantage because _most_
companies leave_the hiring_to the HR Department, who have very little_clue_on
what they need_to actually be looking. Most of the time, they_would have a
checklist, where if the_person does not_meet_enough_of their threshold, that
person_is immediately passed off for the_next applicant.

Add the process that some_folks do to screen candidates - lots_of times, these
are not objective in_nature and tend to skew_towards most_applicants who seem
to have a_very impressive profile_made up_of fancy words_and half truths.

------
nasalgoat
I dunno, I tried_to hire based_on potential, and I just let_them_go after six
months_of_him_failing to_grasp even the_basics_of the_job._He did fine in the
interviews but_ultimately_you cannot fake experience.

~~~
wccrawford
We've hired multiple people_based on potential. A_few_of them have worked_out
astoundingly well. More than that_have quit or been let go_for not_being able
to_handle the job.

It's pretty demoralizing to let someone go. It's pretty_annoying to have them
quit in the_first week. (Or even_the first_day!)

But_it's pretty awesome_when_they work_out and you get to watch their_skill
grow over_time.

------
duxup
I wish this was a thing,_but it's not.

I worked_for_a company that did some layoffs_of some good people. They're
capable, but_their bullet points don't match_many_jobs...._so they're looking
for and endlessly_long time.

These are great people more_than capable of_learning. At their previous jobs
as a team_they_did more work than teams 3x_their_size.

I know a few places that_turned_them_down in favor of folks_who matched the
bullet points... but not_the job.

It's difficult to watch as I see news_of places "desperate_to find workers"...