this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
243 points (95.8% liked)

Mildly Infuriating

35500 readers
869 users here now

Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.

I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!

It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...


7. Content should match the theme of this community.


-Content should be Mildly infuriating.

-At this time we permit content that is infuriating until an infuriating community is made available.

...


8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.


-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.

...

...


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Lemmy Review

2.Lemmy Be Wholesome

3.Lemmy Shitpost

4.No Stupid Questions

5.You Should Know

6.Credible Defense


Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I once applied for a job where one of the requirements was "minimum 5 to 10 years experience in X". My friend told me to submit a CV saying I have 3 to 6 years experience in X and see if they shortlist me.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 35 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I don't usually complain about how people convey what they want, but this one often annoys me a bit - because it's a matter of clarity.

Some might say "well, there's uncertainty on the min/max", but then the higher/lower boundary of the uncertainty doesn't mean anything. That's the case here - it's effectively "minimum 5 years experience", unless you say what would require more experience.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 17 points 8 months ago (2 children)

The higher bound is an indication of maximum salary. It's saying "we need at least 5 years experience, but if you have 30, we're paying you like you have 5."

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 11 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The higher bound is an indication of maximum salary.

Is this something that you know, or that you're assuming?

Note that in both cases it only reinforces what I said about clarity. If the higher bound of the range:

  • is indeed related to the salary - then it is not a requirement, nor should be listed as such
  • is related to something else - are they expecting appliers to assume what the range means?
[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I've been hiring people for 10 years. Before it was common to post salaries, this was a good way to not waste people's time interviewing for jobs below their rate.

It's in the requirement section because that's the section we are able to modify on the stupid Excel sheet that the recruiters force us to use.

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Got it - then you know it. However it's unreasonable to expect that the appliers should also know it*, and it still shouldn't be listed as a requirement. (Even if the ones to blame are the recruiters, not you guys.)

*specially given that everyone is reading this stuff in a different way. You're doing it as "preferable 10 years", @phoenixz@lemmy.ca as "at most 10 years", so goes on.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's why I'm explaining it, yes. So more people can know it.

The job hunt is like any other hobby or skill. Some bits are obvious and written down. Some bits are learned by talking to other people who have done it.

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The job hunt is like any other hobby or skill. Some bits are obvious and written down. Some bits are learned by talking to other people who have done it.

This "skill" seems as relevant for most jobs as being able to read a horoscope. Sure, it's technically a skill, but it shouldn't be there as a "hidden requirement" on first place.

[inb4 I'm aware that you said in another comment that you aren't "saying it’s the right way to do it." I'm talking about the shitty approach being shitty, not blaming you.]

[–] ElderWendigo@sh.itjust.works -2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Your naivety and ignorance about the way people use language and the way the world works is no one's responsibility to correct but your's.

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I'm solely being cooperative. Yes, there's a reasonable chance that the other poster is lying, and I have no way to know it, and I'm not too eager to assume it (like braindead trash would). Nor I'm willing to assume what whoever wrote OP's example is trying to convey.

However, for the sake of the argument, it doesn't matter.

So no, contrariwise to what you're assuming (i.e. making up), I'm not being naive or an ignorant.

Now, if you want to assume things about other posters, instead of discussing the topic at hand, could you please go be a dead weight elsewhere? Like in Reddit?

[–] ElderWendigo@sh.itjust.works -2 points 8 months ago

Wow what a totally unhinged and incoherent response. Thanks.

[–] littlebluespark@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Talk about apologist conjecture.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

I've hired people for a decade. I'm explaining why it's there. I'm not saying it's the right way to do it. Just that this is the way it's done.

[–] TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee -2 points 8 months ago

More skills and expertise = more money