Not sure I agree
Fascinating, sometimes radical views that I’m undecided between accepting and opposing.
Not sure I agree
Fascinating, sometimes radical views that I’m undecided between accepting and opposing.
This post makes the argument that the market has changed, hiring has changed, and if you want to stay competitive you need to do three times (or more) as much work as you were doing so far. Why? To make your design resume and portfolio hyper-relevant, to A/B test versions of those, to practice for interviews by listening to recordings of previous interviews and mentoring answers word for word.
This is crazy. This is less of a lesson for individual candidates to learn and more of a reflection of how unprepared busynesses and hiring departments are with the current candidate pool. How the crazy standards they set and the amount time expected people put in for free. Insane expectations if you ask me.
As someone who’s been in the job market for over a year, I have so much more to write about this imbalance and why it can’t be all put in the hands of candidates to work this out. And it infuriates me that there’s people that just because they made it, because they were those 1/10000 who got the gig, they feel like they’re solved the riddle and get to tell everyone that they riddle is easy if you know what to do. Yet never at any time question if the riddle should exist at all.
As someone who’s currently a part-timer in a supplement store, this hits fucking hard. I know it to be true. But I also know, from colleagues’ stories, that customers do come back happier. Sometimes their ailments have improved partly thanks to what they bought from us. So I don’t know where to stand.
If taking that multivitamin and before-bed gummies feels like it’s helping, it makes you “feel” stronger, or it “feels” like you’re having better sleep. Then who am I to tell you to stop, to reveal that maybe, only maybe, it’s something other than what you’re taking that’s helping. But then again, money rules the game, and people deserve transparency… It’s a hard one to answer.
I’m over writers and entertainers whose entire profit margin is driven by pointing out problematic stuff.
Everything is problematic. I don’t need another hot take to educate me about this.
– Dr Amber Hull
Does everything really stay the same though?
Does everything really stay the same though?
Isn’t it all real life? Why devalue the time, those 40 or more hours we spent working?
Hardly agree. I don’t think that becoming a bigger well-lubricated cog and turning that wheels of capitalism = being a good artist. But here good is a word I’ve added, as it was never mention. Or could it be this concept of “making money is art” is also true and I just don’t want to believe it?
Hardly agree. Not into the idea that becoming a big, well-lubricated cog in the machine of capitalism = creating art. But could it be that I don’t want to believe that that’s what many famous artists are: successful businesses?
AI is aggregated human intelligence. So it’s better to call it collective intelligence than artificial intelligence.
Emphasizing the collectivity (something built on the commons) over the artificiality (a feat of technology) gives us an entire new way to see, perceive and relate to the technology.
-via Holly Herndon, in conversation with Ezra Klein