The fluid analogy is ok for introducing the concept of electricity but it has some significant limitations, so one should grow out of it fairly quickly if you want a deeper understanding of the subject.
I’m an electrical engineer who does circuit design. I’ve interviewed many electrical engineers over the years and the situation of applicants having “years” of experience while simultaneously not knowing how to design a single circuit is real. In our field it’s usually because although the person’s title is engineer, in practice, they don’t do any engineering. There’s just a ton of peripheral work (basically paperwork related to operations and compliance), which is very important, but is not design.
My guess is computer science has a similar issue.
Lots of people with programming in thier job title but they don’t actually program. And based on ltbarcly3’s empirical measurement, “lots” is above 10%. ;)
10% of applicants that make it to a phone screen. I estimate that the number is much lower than 10% overall because incompetent people with good looking resumes tend to do a lot more interviews than good candidates.
"claim" kills? Isn't part of the HR screening about some litmus test to make sure they aren't very obviously lying?
And yes, this is part of why the obsession with FAANG on resume is very overrated. Very few companies require the skillsete FAANG needs. Some of thst FAANG culture is orthogonal to what medium/small sized companies require.
I don't think you read the thread. They did have those jobs, and presumably they were on teams that did vaguely what is on their resume. No HR doesn't investigate candidates or do background checks before you interview them, that would be very expensive and silly.
I feel like you kind of vaguely are aware of these topics but have never actually had a job or something because you seem completely unfamiliar with the basics of how hiring is done in the industry. Are you from Eastern Europe maybe?
Quite the opposite (and sadly, still. American). I'm just so frustrated how I'm 10 years into this career and the interview process feels more random than ever. I can apply to 100 job and interview for 10 that all fall through. Then I can just go to a bar and trip into an opportunity I wasn't fully expecting. What does that say about the interview process?
>No HR doesn't investigate candidates or do background checks before you interview
An HR screen isn't a background check. It's "can you talk about your roles and provlems solved like you actually did it. A good HR screen should make sure they aren't blatantly lying
>that would be very expensive and silly.
Let's both not pretend the interview proces is in any way optimized for any metric. You have often non-tech roles create a description for a tech role (leading to famous blunders like "have and jave script is the same") . You have an increasing amount of rounds of interviews to go through for a job that may not exist or may already be reserved. And more and more of the parts are being outsourced, leading to power quality candidates. All that before throwing a reckless reliance of AI on everything.
The most optimal hiring is to focus on high quality hires brought in as fast as possible. Or not to hire if you don't need to hire. But we're not really running on sensible business practices these days.
You keep saying 'we'. The companies I have worked for have on average had very streamlined interview processes, with the exception of very large (>2000 engineer) companies. I don't know how to fix hiring for companies that big. I'm sure you have a lot of 'ideas' that are really just pointing out the problems. We all see the problems, but fixing them means either empowering individual managers (many of which would just hire their cronies instantly if allowed to) or inventing new ways to do HR which is obviously nontrivial, especially with incumbent HR morons fighting you.
An HR screen will sometimes remove frauds (not usually because they can't really tell, it removes uncharasmatic frauds only), but it also has a very high probability of removing anyone on the autism spectrum - no matter how qualified. I really don't want people on the autism spectrum removed from my hiring funnel for software engineer. If you ever looked over the shoulder of a recruiter or HR when they do a first pass on resumes you will be horrified at how many of the best candidates they pass over because they have no idea what they are reading, and how many very poor candidates they pass along for very stupid reasons like having 'Yale' for their college (despite it being for History and despite it being the extension school, true story, and this person ended up getting hired despite negative interview feedback and then fired for incompetence a few months later).
> An HR screen isn't a background check. It's "can you talk about your roles and provlems solved like you actually did it. A good HR screen should make sure they aren't blatantly lying
Correct. While not perfect, if you have good HR hiring team they will do a decent job at feeling out the people before they get to you.
> I can apply to 100 job and interview for 10 that all fall through.
Part of the difficulty is that (despite any myths around engineering shortage) there are so many qualified people for every role that it is overwhelming.
I just opened a new job req last week, I have over 1100 resumes in the queue already. And this is a pretty specialized technical role in a specialized department, not a generic "javascript software engineer" role, either.
Obviously I can't read all of them, which makes me sad because someone took the time to send their resume and I feel like I should give them the respect of reading it, but there are simply not enough hours in a week. While HR does the screening, I also go and do a random sampling of the resumes and everyone who has applied seems at least moderately qualified. But of course I can only talk to about 1% of them at best.
Why should you get a vote? You don’t get a vote on what groceries I buy. What entitles you to a vote on this purchase decision? (In this case “all the votes” means when making decisions on actions a particular corporation is considering, not any vote on anything)
The creation and transacting of corporate shares is also highly regulated. But it doesn’t address the question of why a third party should get a vote that helps decide a particular corporate action. Votes that limit the possible actions of all corporations equally are a different thing.
Ultimately, the corporation is operating (and gets legal support like corporate personhood and limited liability) because the public permits it through the state approving its corporate charter. The public allows the company to exist, and in exchange, the company is supposed to serve at least some vague public good. Technically, the public has the power to revoke the company's charter if that's in people's best interest.
The general public are all stakeholders that are affected by the actions of the corporations they allow to exist. They ought to have a say. In practice, we as a people have pretty much given up that say, and the world as it exists today is the result: Corporations running amok doing whatever they want, answering only to shareholders.
OP was talking about the overall social arrangement. One possibility would be to give employees (of all corporations!) some collective power over the company, as a fundamental requirement of incorporation.
Also, failing companies that use layoffs to restructure can succeed. For an example see IBM in the 90s. It’s hard but possible. And since the article uses stock price as a proxy for success, IBMs stock struggled for a long time afterward. It hit an all time high in 2025.
And then there are non tech industries that just go through cycles, like oil.
That price is probably $4600 for one Xilinx Versal.
For the MPW run you would get ~100 parts. When everything is said and done, and you pay for packaging etc., on a MPW run you'll likely pay something like $50K. So ~$500ea
The eFabless price of $10K for a full run, including a packaged part, was an unparalleled deal.
It’s still possible to get a chip made, via MPW, from SkyWater.
And you can still use all the open source stuff, like the eFabless pad frame, if you want. But you’ll have to work with SkyWater directly which does require various business agreements to be in place.
Muse semi is an easier path. For Europe there is Europractice which gives access to pretty much any technology.
The problem is access to software and fabs. EDA is expensive and nobody will give access to individuals. Same for fabs. They don't want to give access to a lot of people due to IP theft risks. Anyone can be a North Korean hacker. Plus they operate under US export controls which makes the paperwork daunting.
SkyWater's 130nm has been used for all (most?) of the Efabless × Google MPW (multi project wafer) runs. That PDK was open sourced as part of that initial effort.
Most PDKs have an NDA, but Skywater is an exception. Also, most PDKs have some software restrictions on their standard cells because they never tested them with the open-source tools, but with difficulty you can use their design rules in software like MAGIC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_analogy#Limits_to_th...