>Unpopular opinion around these parts, but there's a high correlation between the best candidates and people who take the time to review the job posting and customize their resume before submitting.
There's also a high correlation between matching the job description perfectly and the resume being AI generated and/or dishonest. Doubly so if the requirements are overly specific or contain pure nonsense as some do (saw "Must have 5 years experience with Claude Code" recently). You can filter out people who blatantly don't match the job and those who obviously just copied the job description. Never seen much correlation between the quality of resumes in the middle (ok to great) and how well they do in interviews.
Not to mention at many places "requirements" are mere suggestions or a low-effort list of technologies taken from the resume of the person who quit. Everybody has their own filtering rules and hiring managers rarely agree with each other much less the HR people usually doing the first round of filtering. The true requirements come out only at the resume filtering or interview stage.
>I doubt the "best candidate" is also the person who can't be bothered to take 10 minutes to update their resume before pressing submit.
The "best candidate" a lot of times doesn't mean the best able to do the job. It often means the ones who 1. makes the hiring manager feel good by being enthusiastic about their (statistically) average job for average pay and 2. minimizes their perceived risk of looking bad for their hiring choice.
>If a job listing asks for Python and someone submits a resume that does not list Python, it's fair to reject that candidate.
If you're not a FAANGMULA type place then sure. But also if your job posting lists something like "Python 3.14" or "7+ years Python" I know the hiring manager probably doesn't know the first thing about python. In that case I think it's fair for any decent programmer to lie because they will likely surpass the hiring managers knowledge by studying python a bit before the interview.
No but hole punching isn't really needed in that scenario. Open a port on the IPv4 side + dyanmic DNS. More than likely that is what tailscale is doing for you. Opening a port on that end w/UPnP. But can't argue with how simple it is with tailscale.
Doubtful. Most consular green card applications are for family based immigration. This pause is also for final interviews for visas that are basically approved already. Labor market test already happened a while ago if relevant.
Employment based green cards are mostly granted inside the U.S. via adjustment of status without state dept involvement.
>successive administrations ignored the intent of the law, for so long that people began to rely on assurances that the law never promised. Now that the law is getting applied properly, those people are facing the consequences.
No, there's nothing proper about it and it has nothing to do with the merits of the visas in question. There is no law saying that the state department should make travel impractical for people USCIS has already decided can live/work in the US. The reverse is much more likely. They want to push people off of legally obtained visas by causing unreasonable delays.
H1B is temporary but you can have immigrant intent. It can be extended indefinitely with an approved green card application. Your employer is going to pursue that if you're on h1b and they want to keep you around. Many if not most h1b holders are in that category and will get a green card eventually. They are simply waiting for that to be available due to quotas based on their qualifications and birthplace.
Not sure what you're trying to say regarding back-dating. I think what you're missing is that long term holders of H1Bs universally have an approved PR or at least a pending one. That's the basis for extending it past the usual temporary limit. They need to stay on the work visa (with its limitations) until the immigrant visa becomes available (different from approval).
>seeking permanent residence on a tourist visa is not allowed, under most conditions.
In the US, it's allowed under your stated conditions. Immediate relatives of US citizens can generally adjust status to PR from any status (including tourist visa/visa waiver) or no status. Although if your underlying status expires you could be temporarily detained on a discretionary basis.
That said, it's better to pursue a K1 if you plan to get married shortly after arriving. It's very unlikely you will be granted a tourist visa if you tell the truth in the interview that you're engaged to someone in the US with immediate plans to marry.
Border searches aren't arbitrary when done for the purposes of border security and applied to travelers in a non-arbitrary way. It's pretty clear that CBP agents have a wide discretion to search people at their own whims i.e. arbitrarily.
>that the government does so lawfully
There are many legal question in this case, it's not clear the government acted lawfully. If he'd have arrived in a different federal court district, the search was unlawful because precedent says they need reasonable suspicion.
Not to mention this was a pretext to gather warrantless evidence for the FBI for a domestic investigation and nothing to do with securing the border.
>Antagonising law enforcement in this situation is not a smart move
Maybe "antagonise" isn't the right word (ESL). By tricking the border agent into wiping the device, you have made him annoyed / angry / look foolish etc. No matter how much you are in the right, you have now given this person, with the power to create a lot of problems for you, the motivation to do so. You have to weigh that against coming home to your wife and children, in time for dinner. That's not fair, but that's reality.
Or maybe you crossed the border, with the intent to create this situation, to get it tried in court. More power to you.
About five years ago, here in Denmark, the government decided that freedom of assembly no longer applied. An activist decided to hold a party for about 10 people, including his lawyer, called the police on himself, and live streamed the whole thing. I can't find whatever became of that case, because search engines can no longer search. His name is Lars Andersen. He's been jailed a lot of times for petty bullshit.
Generally I think the person implementing it has a poor native scrolling experience due to poor hardware and/or software and the hijacked behavior seems better to them.
The "narrative" above is that they're both made by seemingly well-intentioned solo developers, that's it. Use your own judgement for something that wants to inject JS into every website you visit.
> The "narrative" above is that they're both made by seemingly well-intentioned solo developers
Our comments don't disagree (though I was only responding to the comment parent to mine). My point is to question how 'MIT student' is a signal for 'well-intentioned'.
There's also a high correlation between matching the job description perfectly and the resume being AI generated and/or dishonest. Doubly so if the requirements are overly specific or contain pure nonsense as some do (saw "Must have 5 years experience with Claude Code" recently). You can filter out people who blatantly don't match the job and those who obviously just copied the job description. Never seen much correlation between the quality of resumes in the middle (ok to great) and how well they do in interviews.
Not to mention at many places "requirements" are mere suggestions or a low-effort list of technologies taken from the resume of the person who quit. Everybody has their own filtering rules and hiring managers rarely agree with each other much less the HR people usually doing the first round of filtering. The true requirements come out only at the resume filtering or interview stage.
>I doubt the "best candidate" is also the person who can't be bothered to take 10 minutes to update their resume before pressing submit.
The "best candidate" a lot of times doesn't mean the best able to do the job. It often means the ones who 1. makes the hiring manager feel good by being enthusiastic about their (statistically) average job for average pay and 2. minimizes their perceived risk of looking bad for their hiring choice.
>If a job listing asks for Python and someone submits a resume that does not list Python, it's fair to reject that candidate.
If you're not a FAANGMULA type place then sure. But also if your job posting lists something like "Python 3.14" or "7+ years Python" I know the hiring manager probably doesn't know the first thing about python. In that case I think it's fair for any decent programmer to lie because they will likely surpass the hiring managers knowledge by studying python a bit before the interview.
reply