- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, TXT, Maximum:11000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 4246 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
590 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 438151
Now that all the excitement has died down I thought it time we redo the mid-week thread. What are you two up-to?
I've organised a date for the weekend but have come to realise that I'd better keep something of a conversation going unless I want to be stood up. This is going to be tedious. I might want to think about doing some work today as well.
|>>|| No. 439598
I'm not going to watch the video, just going to infer from this >>439595 that they all grow massive breasts.
|>>|| No. 439605
I have awoken at 3am, it is tremendously foggy outside, my left nostril is completely blocked. Something terrible is happening.
|>>|| No. 439607
Thought I'd look dead professional sending an email first thing inthe morning, but instead I just frogot to attach the files I supposed to. Beginning to think Marge was right; "don't try, kids".
|>>|| No. 439608
Most modern email clients are able to detect if you've mentioned an attachment in the body of the email and warn you before sending if nothing is attached - what are you using?
And your Simpsons reference is tragically wrong - that's Homer, and he said "You tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try."
|>>|| No. 439610
Not to denigrate someone's job but someone I went to school with has made a lengthy post on Facebook extolling the virtues of being a cleaner, saying things like people allow them to venture inside the most private aspects of their lives. I've nothing against cleaners but you don't have to try and rationalise your career choice by making it out as if you're doing a noble profession when you're really not.
|>>|| No. 439613
There's no prestige in being a cleaner but after years of kitchen work I can see the appeal in just slacking around making things clean and tidy without dealing with kitchen shit. Literally any job seems easy after all that bullshit.
|>>|| No. 439615
All professions are noble professions ladm8.
Where would you be without the legions of people willing to do the jobs your poncey nancy boy hands are too soft and supple to be soiled with?
|>>|| No. 439618
That's a pretty good reason to buy anything to be honest.
HP, Dell and Lenovo laptops mostly seem fairly awful nowadays if you know what you're doing with computer; there are exceptions in each lineup, but most are terrible.
If you don't know what you're doing with computer, they're fine and a fairly safe choice - there are many worse brands out there, and unless you want to do all the support for her (trust me, you don't), she is better off buying a well-known brand from a well-known place.
|>>|| No. 439619
>the primary reason she wants this one is because "it's purple."
I've come to regard excessive colour and personalisation as more attentioin paid to branding and sales - an item as unique as you - and less to creating an actual quality product. Every time I've bought something techy because it 'looks nice' it's turned out shit - this is one of the resons i avoid those pointy/dented gamer mouses, they look intentionally cool.
>I doubt she'd use it for anything other than sending emails and internet shopping.
But then again, if this is so then why not have a machine you're going to enjoy seeing and using. Your mother might be embarrassed to pull out a performance and cost efficient brick of a laptop, whereas her slim purple one is cute and prestigious among friends. It's not as garish as I'd imagined.
> Intel® Core™ i3-1005G1 Processor
> Storage: 256 GB SSD
> RAM: 8 GB
Specs looks fine but the cost seems pretty high - I don't really do tech so you might want another opinion.
|>>|| No. 439622
Had a healthy dinner of carrot soup and then followed it up with four Eccles cakes practicing for being annexed by Greater Manchester once the shooting starts.
|>>|| No. 439624
I haven't had one of those for years. Also, lardy cake. Do they still make lardy cake?
|>>|| No. 439631
I'll be honest, I have no idea what a lardy cake is. Having looked at photos I think I know exactly what it tastes like though. That's not to say they aren't about, as I'm so unobservant you could messily stuff one through my letter box and I wouldn't notice for days.
|>>|| No. 439632
It's like a cake, made of the same/very similar ingredients to a current bun, but scaled up to cake sized and soaked with some kind of fat. The texture should be quite light, like a bun, but the huge amounts of extra fat make it sticky and rich.
Maybe a huge currant bun soaked in lard would be a better way to describe it. I'm doing a poor job of describing them, but I can tell you they were absolutely delicious and I could easily eat a whole one, as a teenager.
|>>|| No. 439687
I hate these interview questions, I absolutely fucking loathe them. They are biased against people like me who can't remember what they did yesterday, let alone 'a time I did X'.
|>>|| No. 439688
Any interview question that begins "Tell me about a time..." is a STAR question in disguise.
|>>|| No. 439689
I know, I know, I understand what they are trying to do - but I'm not the kind of person who can just pull shit like that from memory. I love helping people, I'd be overjoyed if I got to improve someone's day, I'm sure I've gone out of my way to do so many a time, but I'm fucked if I can remember one and the details of what happened.
|>>|| No. 439690
Star questions are a load of bollocks. They're used during interviews by people who don't know how to find what they're actually looking for.
|>>|| No. 439692
The trick to interviews is to have five to ten scenarios that you can recycle for almost any question - like a politician would. Sad, but it works.
|>>|| No. 439693
If you draw a blank on questions that are really par for the course, then it is going to make you look bad, because you evidently didn't prepare for the most bog standard interview situations.
And even if you feel like demonstratively rolling your eyes at the twentieth time somebody asks you where you see yourself in five years or what your strengths and weaknesses are - they will infer from that that you don't make sure you are prepared for predictable, standard everyday situations on the job.
|>>|| No. 439694
If a company started asking me these questions I'd either reject a job offer from them or ask for silly money. It's an indication to me that they're poorly run.
However, I realise that I may have a blinkered view on this because most job interviews I've had in my line of work are based around technical questions to gauge my actual ability to do the job.
|>>|| No. 439696
>And even if you feel like demonstratively rolling your eyes at the twentieth time somebody asks you where you see yourself in five years
Absolutely right. I mean the first point to make is that people asking that question are already bored of you/your answers, and are just filling for time to not embarrass you. If you're clever / confident, you laugh at the question and make a joke with a super-standard sounding answer. But the serious point is that it shows a lack of preparation if you haven't got some kind of answer for the stupid questions.
Preparing for interviews is easy - write down the ten questions you would least like to be asked, and rehearse answers to those.
|>>|| No. 439699
Interviews are unimaginatively tedious to begin with, so unless you're the very first candidate to be interviewed you have to work under the assumption that they're already more bored of asking those questions, than you are of answering them. This is why it's best to stick to the script and don't waste time trying to be a smart arse- They'll appreciate that you know they have their boxes to tick and oblige them.
It's all a matter of what kind of job you're going for, and if you're an established professional in a technical field, it should go without saying that your experience is irrelevant to someone doing a boilerplate interview for a bog standard office job. To someone who just needs a job, any job, the STAR approach is key because it's the technique used by every half-arsed HR drone across the country.
I once worked as a customer service operator for a scummy credit card company, and one of the people they took on was this old chap coming back from retirement who had previously worked for Lloyds, quite high up dealing with anti-money laundering and corruption. He was massively overqualified for the job and all the bosses hated him because he kept causing trouble. If they had have been hiring directly instead of using an agency, I'm certain they would have put his CV straight in the bin because of that alone.
What I'm saying is, in essence, horses for courses. Your approach probably wouldn't get you very far if you ever found yourself unemployed and needed a job quickly.
Exactly. Most job interviews aren't particularly looking for competence, because if we're really honest with ourselves, an incredible proportion of the jobs in this country could be done by a trained monkey. What they're looking for is someone who knows what's expected of them, and knows how to play the game. Someone who speaks the right language and follows all the established protocols. The kind of person you can safely plop behind the desk and not worry about.
|>>|| No. 439700
>If a company started asking me these questions I'd either reject a job offer from them or ask for silly money. It's an indication to me that they're poorly run.
You're missing the point of why they are asking you those questions. They want to know how you deal with tedium and entirely predictable everyday situations. If you can't give a convincing answer, however daft you think the question is where you will be in five years and however rehearsed your answer is, then how are you going to react when you are in that job and your boss asks you to do your sales report every month.
All those questions are meant to gauge your personality. They aren't really interested in where you want to be in five years or what your strengths and weaknesses are, unless you give them some unexpectedly remarkable answers. And not least because they've already heard clever answers from five other candidates that day. They want to know what kind of person you are on a very general level.
The more straightforward questions will be those that actually concern the kind of work you would be doing. If you apply for a job as a lab technician, then they will probably want to know a good bit about how familiar you are with recent lab technologies in your field. Or if you're applying to become a product manager, they will quiz you on all kinds of technical details about the kind of product you will be involved in managing and developing.
You want something from them, and have to convince them that they want something from you, and not from one of the 100 other people who have e-mailed in their CV. And if you're too much of a snob to play that game and do that dance, then you will struggle to get the really good jobs.
|>>|| No. 439708
Things to ask in interviews:
- Situational questions. You've been in the situation, your colleagues have been in the situation, it should therefore be obvious when the candidate is bullshitting.
- Problem-solving and technical questions. These should be fairly simple, capable of being wrapped up in no more than about 10-15 minutes.
Things not to ask in interviews:
- Brain teasers. They're overrated, and the big tech firms have stopped asking them because they don't provide any useful signal.
- Trivia questions. "What is X?" "How do you do Y?" If you can Google your question and get the correct answer on the first page, it's a pointless question.
- Textbook questions. "What would X say about you?" You're tired of asking them, the candidates are tired of answering them, you're almost certainly introducing bias in interpreting the answers. It's a bullshit dance and you're just wasting everyone's time.
- Trick questions. If you're insistent on showing people how much of a smart-arse you are, maybe you shouldn't be responsible for hiring anyone, and maybe your boss should be rethinking hiring you in the first place.
|>>|| No. 439711
Our entry level employees are customer service above anything else, and we interview them with a group task and then a very generic STAR based interview. The group task is weighted far more in importance than the private interview, basically if you look like you're enjoying yourself and aren't talking over people you've got the job. The individual interview is just there to make sure you've done the bare minimum research of googling the company and "what do people ask in job interviews" and have prepared accordingly.
For the roles above this, that require skill or technical knowledge, there is more to it, but it's still more about making sure you're going to be a good fit, and then verifying you have the ability to do the job. And actually there's a lot of technical questions in the application that weed out the real fruitbaskets.
I do see this come up a lot on here, people complaining that these sorts of interviews are basic or insulting, but I think we have to remember that just because the three of us are typically interviewing for high level or very specific roles, doesn't mean that the other two are. It's interesting interviewing someone like an engineer in our industry as they already have a big thick pile of paperwork confirming they definitely know what they're doing, the rest is just working out how much of a cunt they are.
|>>|| No. 439712
You have to remember that in all likelihood, they didn't just go through their pile of CVs and picked you blindfolded with their hands on their backs. If they cared enough to invite you for an interview, then that means that on paper, you are at least theoretically already somebody they could imagine hiring for the job. They want to see what kind of a person you are in general. Well and of course if you're not just trying to blag it and lie about all the factual knowledge and experience you claim to have.
Really the way most people fuck up an interview is by getting all the Interview 101 stuff and all the human interaction wrong.
I went to an interview once where the interviewer asked me at the beginning if I wanted something to drink, and I said coffee, for which he then had to go to the kitchen all the way at the other end of the hallway and put the coffee machine on. This was before push button machines became all the rage. It was a Friday afternoon and nearly everybody else had already left. Then 35 to 40 minutes later when we were done with the interview as such, he said, "Oh, I completely forgot about your coffee. I'm really sorry. I'll just go get it for you". And I said, no that's ok, we're done here anyway, aren't we. So he said, "You could at least be nice enough to drink the coffee that I made especially for you". So I sat there and drank my coffee and tried to keep some small talk going, but I could tell from the way he was acting that if that didn't put me out of the running on its own, it was at least the last straw in realising I wasn't right for the job as a person. We were able to establish during the interview that I ticked all the boxes in terms of formal qualification and practical experience, but small stuff like that apparently gave him a bad impression.
|>>|| No. 439713
>small stuff like that apparently gave him a bad impression.
You're completely right about the bit where you say the fact that you even got the interview, means they think you're probably qualified for the job.
I have interviewed, and hired, a lot of people - I always say that I know who is a hire, and who isn't by the time we've started the actual interview - the social interaction when I met you at reception, we make small talk on the way up in the lift, get the drink and sit down, eight times out of ten you know whether that person is going to gel with you and other people in the office. Those impressions really count.
|>>|| No. 439714
>"You could at least be nice enough to drink the coffee that I made especially for you".
Fucking hell, lad. That's downright abusive, and you definitely dodged a bullet there. If I found out someone responsible for hiring where I work was pulling shit like that I'd be asking some serious questions.
>I always say that I know who is a hire, and who isn't by the time we've started the actual interview - the social interaction when I met you at reception, we make small talk on the way up in the lift, get the drink and sit down, eight times out of ten you know whether that person is going to gel with you and other people in the office.
That seems like a really good way to hire a bunch of people that look like you.
|>>|| No. 439716
I once got asked to sell a comb to a bald man, and a fridge to an eskimo. The guy probably picked these out of The Big Book of Interview Questions.
|>>|| No. 439717
For sales roles like that, you will get the ultra-cheesy questions - "Sell me this pen" etc. It measures how creative you can be with an ultra boring, repetitive, (but lucrative) job.
|>>|| No. 439718
Has anyone ever smashed the pen into sharp pieces then threatened to stab the interviewer if they don't buy it, and still got the job?
|>>|| No. 439720
Migrating Power Point slides to LibreOffice is a fucking pain. They're giving LibreOffice a test run at work now to see if they can replace Office 365 to cut costs. Some of us are supposed to do all our presentations with LibreOffice Impress for the next two weeks and then deliver our verdict to management.
I've had to import some slides from Power Point, and LibreOffice just throws everything all over the place. It ignores some of the text formatting or shape attributes, and most of the dropdown menu options are in different places and under different names. It even messed up the A4 paper format that I set in Power Point and replaced it with "user defined", which is for some reason much narrower.
Other than that, LibreOffice isn't easier or more difficult to use than MS Office, I am finding. You just have to relearn everything, i.e. how to get the results you want.
|>>|| No. 439723
Not my decision. They want to do the experiment with LibreOffice. About six or seven of us are supposed to use it for two weeks, on non-critical projects, and then have a group chat with IT and management to say how we've been getting on. It will then determine if we'll gradually switch to LibreOffice entirely.
|>>|| No. 439724
LaTeX Beamer is the only true FOSS way of doing presentations.
Iirc, Google's office suite for business use isn't particularly cheaper than Office 365.
|>>|| No. 439726
Oh fuck me. Cheap bastards. I use LibreOffice at home because I'm forced to, not because it's as good as Microsoft's products. It's full of bugs. I pity you.
|>>|| No. 439727
With the exception of Writer, Office is clearly better. Writer doesn't beat Word, but it's nowhere near as clear-cut. Calc isn't bad but it's no Excel. PowerPoint beats the pants off Impress. Base is shit, but then if you willingly use Access it's no less than you deserve.
|>>|| No. 439728
Like I said, it's an experiment. They want to see how it performs under real-world conditions within our company, and what we will think after two weeks of using it side by side with MS Office.
I'm not impressed by Impress, it's not horrible but I am struggling with it so far. And like I said, it throws all my Power Point markups all over the place, which is frustrating. Writer definitely has a flatter learning curve than Impress, and I can't say much about Calc, haven't used it yet.
|>>|| No. 439730
I picked my daughter up from school yesterday. The teacher told me that she'd get a new reading book every Friday and a new library book every Monday, but she should be bringing them both to school in her book bag every day.
Today my girlfriend, her mum, picked her up. The teacher checked to see if I'd passed on the message. This sort of sexist bollocks really boils my piss. Dads are fucking simpletons incapable of following simple instructions and it's down to the mum to sort everything instead of co-parenting.
You want this thread >>/pol/90784.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]