Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>   The reasons for this are in relation to your skills set, whilst you
> demonstrate some good skills we felt that this was more toward technical
> development rather than web based business development.

see?  You should forget about algorithms with funky russian names and focus more
on customizing PHP CMS toolkits and CSS layouts.  Let the PHP technician wizards
do the compsci magic behind it all.

Post a reply to this message

On 06/09/2012 04:58 PM, nemesis wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>>    The reasons for this are in relation to your skills set, whilst you
>> demonstrate some good skills we felt that this was more toward technical
>> development rather than web based business development.
>
> see?  You should forget about algorithms with funky russian names and focus more
> on customizing PHP CMS toolkits and CSS layouts.  Let the PHP technician wizards
> do the compsci magic behind it all.

Or perhaps look at another career - one that actually makes use of my 
skills.

The thing is, I can't think of any career that makes use of an ability 
to memorise and apply pointless algorithms...

Post a reply to this message

On 06/09/2012 04:55 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 10:34:14 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
>> OK, so it's worse than I thought. It appears that not only did I not get
>> the job, I didn't even make it to the second round of interviews.
>
> That happens a lot.  And there will be times where you might get to a
> second and even a third interview and still not get the job.
>
> That's how this works.

If I'd got through multiple rounds of assessment and not got the job, I 
could content myself that maybe I was only just beaten by this one other 
guy who had something slightly better.

On the other hand, what /actually/ happened is that I failed at the very 
first step. So apparently there were a shedload of people far better 
than me to choose from.

>> Looks like I might just be doomed to unemployment forever. :-(
>
> Oh, FFS, Andrew - I've not had full-time permanent work for 16 months.
> You've been officially unemployed for what, a week?

You demonstrably have skills that employers want. I don't. And that's 
what worries me. Nobody has ever employed me for real money before. I'm 
rather concerned that maybe nobody ever will.

> Now, don't despair, just move on to the next interview - and the next,
> and the next, until you find the right job.

You're assuming that there will /be/ a next interview. IME, this is by 
no means certain.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
> The thing is, I can't think of any career that makes use of an ability
> to memorise and apply pointless algorithms...

Off the top of my head: research, finance, crypto/security, logistics, data
mining, robotics, communications, marketing, disaster response, management
consulting (resource allocation), econonomics (micro and macro), political
consulting,...

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:52:48 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> On 06/09/2012 04:55 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 10:34:14 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>
>>> OK, so it's worse than I thought. It appears that not only did I not
>>> get the job, I didn't even make it to the second round of interviews.
>>
>> That happens a lot.  And there will be times where you might get to a
>> second and even a third interview and still not get the job.
>>
>> That's how this works.
> 
> If I'd got through multiple rounds of assessment and not got the job, I
> could content myself that maybe I was only just beaten by this one other
> guy who had something slightly better.

I've gone through rounds where I was eliminated from consideration at the 
first round as well.  It's not unusual.

You seem to think that this is unusual.  It isn't - this is how job 
hunting works.

> On the other hand, what /actually/ happened is that I failed at the very
> first step. So apparently there were a shedload of people far better
> than me to choose from.

Yeah, and I've failed at the very first step as well several times in the 
last 16 months.  It's how this works.  Your situation is not unique - far 
from it, it's about as common a situation as people see.

>>> Looks like I might just be doomed to unemployment forever. :-(
>>
>> Oh, FFS, Andrew - I've not had full-time permanent work for 16 months.
>> You've been officially unemployed for what, a week?
> 
> You demonstrably have skills that employers want. I don't. And that's
> what worries me. Nobody has ever employed me for real money before. I'm
> rather concerned that maybe nobody ever will.

You have skills - you aren't as good at presenting them largely because 
you don't acknowledge your skills.  You look at what you can do and don't 
think it's special because it's easy for you.

News flash:  Things that are easy for you aren't easy for other people.

>> Now, don't despair, just move on to the next interview - and the next,
>> and the next, until you find the right job.
> 
> You're assuming that there will /be/ a next interview. IME, this is by
> no means certain.

Your experience is very limited.  There will be future interviews, and 
you will find something - unless you just give up and declare it 
impossible.  DON'T DO THAT.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> The thing is, I can't think of any career that makes use of an ability
>> to memorise and apply pointless algorithms...
>
> Off the top of my head:

> research

Seriously? That's a career? Talk about "vague"...

> finance

Wouldn't I need extensive finance qualifications to do that?

> crypto/security

Seriously, almost *nobody* actually does that.

>  logistics

Really? I'm sure it's difficult keeping track of stuff, but I don't see 
much technical detail involved. It's just about keeping track of a lot 
of stuff all at once. It's hard, but it isn't very technical.

> data mining

Does anybody actually do that? I thought it was just a fashionable 
middle management buzzword.

> robotics

Is there any commercial application for that?

> communications

 From what I've seen, installing comms equipment doesn't require a great 
deal of technical skill - you just need to be good at carrying stuff 
around and running cables.

> marketing

There's technical expertise in that?

> disaster response

What kind of disaster response requires technical skill?

> management consulting (resource allocation), econonomics (micro and macro),
political
> consulting,...

I'm not even going to pretend to understand what any of those are.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 20:05:24 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>> research
> 
> Seriously? That's a career? Talk about "vague"...

<sigh>

>> finance
> 
> Wouldn't I need extensive finance qualifications to do that?

Being good with numbers is a qualification for being able to do finance, 
and you're demonstrably good with numbers.

>> crypto/security
> 
> Seriously, almost *nobody* actually does that.

Bullshit.  I'm presently working with two teams that are knee-deep in 
crypto and security work.  Identity management, authentication, etc - all 
use that extensively.

>> data mining
> 
> Does anybody actually do that? I thought it was just a fashionable
> middle management buzzword.

Yes.  See "Business Intelligence".  Data-driven decision making is 
something that a lot of businesses do, and they tend to be successful.

>> robotics
> 
> Is there any commercial application for that?

Manufacturing uses robotics in a huge way.

>> communications
> 
>  From what I've seen, installing comms equipment doesn't require a great
> deal of technical skill - you just need to be good at carrying stuff
> around and running cables.

I'll be sure to tell the highly-paid network engineers I've worked with 
that you said that. ;)

>> marketing
> 
> There's technical expertise in that?

Yes.  Writing marketing copy that actually convinces technical people 
requires technical expertise.

>> disaster response
> 
> What kind of disaster response requires technical skill?

Your data center has burned to the ground.  Recover it.

Yeah, that takes a lot of technical skill - and ability to use those 
skills quickly to get the services running as soon as possible.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>>> The thing is, I can't think of any career that makes use of an ability
>>> to memorise and apply pointless algorithms...
>>
>> Off the top of my head:
>
>> research
>
> Seriously? That's a career? Talk about "vague"...
>

Every company that manufactures stuff has a R&D dept.  Every university 
has professors doing a lot of R and a little D to pay for more R.

Nowadays, most of these people will need computer simulation programs, 
statistical data analysis, etc...

You already have some chemical knowledge acquired by osmosis, why not 
try to focus on bio-tech or pharmaceutical companies?

>> finance
>
> Wouldn't I need extensive finance qualifications to do that?
>

To become a floor trader at the stock exchange, sure.  But to crunch the 
mountains of numbers that the financial industry needs to crunch, no. 
There would be other people with the financial knowledge who would tell 
you which pile of numbers needs to be regression-tested against what 
other pile of numbers and please apply So-And-So's (here,s the article 
that talks about it) formula to determine if it's a good investment or not.

>> crypto/security
>
> Seriously, almost *nobody* actually does that.
>

Right.  And encryption/decryption algoritms sprout from trees?

>>  logistics
>
> Really? I'm sure it's difficult keeping track of stuff, but I don't see
> much technical detail involved. It's just about keeping track of a lot
> of stuff all at once. It's hard, but it isn't very technical.
>

Planning bus routes, garbabe disposal truck routes, snow removal routes, 
etc... are not exactly trivial.  Making sure there's actually a plane, 
preferably in working order, at gate 23B for the 6 o'clock flight, and a 
flight crew and a cabin crew, and a ground crew to take care of the 
loading/deloading, can be quite a task.  Operational reasearch is a 
field of mathematics that is quite active, and those mathematicians need 
programmers who also can understand them.  You'd fit nicely.

>> data mining
>
> Does anybody actually do that? I thought it was just a fashionable
> middle management buzzword.
>

See airline example above.  They don't decide to put an Airbus 319 or 
388 on each flight just for the fun of it.  There's very extensive data 
analysis that goes in to determine the best aircraft size for a 
particular flight, and that analysis comes from crunching as much of 
the previous passenger stats they can.  Most industries also do so at 
all levels to see how many widgets to pre-order to keep the aseembly 
line running, without having to pay for a larger than necessary 
warehouse.  When to time your yearly discounts, how to target your 
advertizing campaigns. Etc...

>> robotics
>
> Is there any commercial application for that?
>

Apart from all the manufacturing that's done by automation, even today's 
dishwashers have programmable controllers that can sense the dirtiness 
of the dishes and adjust the cycles accordingly.  If I was named Sarah 
Connor, I'd be worried at the moment.

>> communications
>
>  From what I've seen, installing comms equipment doesn't require a great
> deal of technical skill - you just need to be good at carrying stuff
> around and running cables.
>

Right.  That's because the shmuck who has to go onsite to run the cables 
isn't the one who has to keep them running.  It's like if you'd said 
"mechanical engineering doesn't look that hard... I mean the guy at the 
gas station barely does anything".

>> disaster response
>
> What kind of disaster response requires technical skill?
>

Planning to avoid them, and planning to deal with them when they can't 
be avoided.  And dealing with them once you're knee deep in the water 
and the roof has flown 5 miles away.  all of these steps require as 
much, if not more, technical-know how than heavy lifting.


-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

> I've gone through rounds where I was eliminated from consideration at the
> first round as well.  It's not unusual.

+1 from me. I applied to numerous jobs where I heard *nothing* back, 
then the ones that replied and said no straight away, then the ones who 
gave me a telephone interview and said no afterwards, then the one that 
said that they weren't sure about me, but would interview me if I paid 
my own travel (it was in a different country). Then the ones where you 
actually get to have a real interview and it seems to have gone well but 
they still say no. It's completely normal, what is not normal is to 
apply for one or two jobs and then get one of them straight away.

Post a reply to this message

>>> finance
>>
>> Wouldn't I need extensive finance qualifications to do that?
>
> Being good with numbers is a qualification for being able to do finance,
> and you're demonstrably good with numbers.

Ironically, I'm really quite bad with numbers. I'm good with /equations/...

>>> crypto/security
>>
>> Seriously, almost *nobody* actually does that.
>
> Bullshit.  I'm presently working with two teams that are knee-deep in
> crypto and security work.  Identity management, authentication, etc - all
> use that extensively.

You're telling me there are more than three people on Earth who actually 
design ciphers?

>>> data mining
>>
>> Does anybody actually do that? I thought it was just a fashionable
>> middle management buzzword.
>
> Yes.  See "Business Intelligence".  Data-driven decision making is
> something that a lot of businesses do, and they tend to be successful.

I would have thought that querying the data to get the numbers you want 
is the /easy/ part. The hard part, surely, is figuring out what 
questions to ask in the first place. And that is out of my league.

>>> robotics
>>
>> Is there any commercial application for that?
>
> Manufacturing uses robotics in a huge way.

OK. But those robots already exist. Why would you ever need to design more?

>>> communications
>>
>>    From what I've seen, installing comms equipment doesn't require a great
>> deal of technical skill - you just need to be good at carrying stuff
>> around and running cables.
>
> I'll be sure to tell the highly-paid network engineers I've worked with
> that you said that. ;)

OK.

>>> marketing
>>
>> There's technical expertise in that?
>
> Yes.  Writing marketing copy that actually convinces technical people
> requires technical expertise.

You must be looking at very different "marketing copy" than the stuff 
I've seen.

Typically you get a picture of something expensive - a server, a disk 
enclosure, whatever - and a paragraph of fancy middle management 
power-word bullocks about how the company offer you "synergistic 
solutions" to "streamline" your operations and "leverage" legacy assets 
with their "revolutionary innovations" - hell no, I can't even type this 
stuff! >_<

In particular, such material is utterly devoid of even the slightest 
hint of technical detail. Lots of hand-waving about "total cost of 
ownership" and "return on investment" and so forth, but no technical 
specifications, and no prices.

>>> disaster response
>>
>> What kind of disaster response requires technical skill?
>
> Your data center has burned to the ground.  Recover it.
>
> Yeah, that takes a lot of technical skill - and ability to use those
> skills quickly to get the services running as soon as possible.

Or rather, it requires technical skill to design the data center 
correctly in the first place. By the time a disaster actually occurs, it 
should be easy enough that a trained monkey could do the actual recovery 
part...

Post a reply to this message