> I don't mind hearing no's, I just hate feeling in limbo on the candidate side.
Haha, definitely agree on this and great idea on exposing a timeframe for different stages, will definitely look into getting this implemented.
It would also be really cool if it showed (instead of a timeframe set by the recruiter) the actual median time for that stage for others, but I'm not sure if recruiters would be comfortable not having "control" of that number.
But even a recruiter/company set timeframe would definitely help the candidate understand and I think would still help keep the recruiters honest.
Hi HN, Andrew here, would love any feedback, whether its on the hiring/recruiting side or from the candidate perspective.
You need to signup to dive into the recruiter side, but you can see a preview of the candidate experience without any login at https://drumcircle.io/sample-experience
Yeah, I've really enjoyed the "remix culture" around Wordle. Gives me strong and positive vibes from an earlier stage of the Web. (And Glitch is a gem -- it made real-time collaboration from across the dining table a breeze).
I thought this might be interesting and relevant to HN as the first product of a new startup with the goal of expanding into a full fledged CPG company out of SV.
I also thought the launch, marketing and focus on men and women of color were interesting. Maybe I should have posted this link instead which provides some extra context
What an impractical thing to say. We could have no laws at all if we followed that philosophy to its logical conclusion. We can't forbid theft, because that impinges on our natural freedom to obtain the things we want. We can't forbid public urination, because that means giving up our freedom to relieve ourselves wherever we like. And so on and so forth.
Living in civilization is all about giving up our freedom to do certain things in exchange for the protection and comfort that society offers.
Living in a civilization is about joining a social contract to not infringe on each others rights. (theft, rape, murder, etc infringe on the victims rights, where as buying Bucky Balls does not affect anyone but the purchaser)
When you sell tiny metal balls to teenagers on the auspices that those teenagers will scrupulously prevent them from being made available to toddlers, or else those toddlers might die, it's probably easy to argue that you're affecting people besides the immediate purchasers.
well.. the same thing could be said about allowing teenagers to drive a car on the auspices that they will not drive too fast, or text, or do any number of other stupid things... or else people might die. At some point you have to make people take responsibility for their actions.
Yes? Very yes? I say this not just as the terrified parent of a 13 year old: we are entirely too casual about letting teenagers get behind the wheels of motor vehicles.
So do we go after the car makers because irresponsible parents let irresponsible teens do stupid stuff while driving and some old lady got killed? Not so far.
Groan. The debate isn't whether you should be free to own these things. The debate is whether companies should be free to market them as toys in the retail channel.
