> Like what a few other folks in this thread pointed out, your resume and your portfolio looks outdated and fragmented on my first glance. Most recruiters and hiring managers spend 5 seconds max during the first pass, so first impressions matter.
From the blog post, it seems the author already received that feedback multiple times, but somehow failed to act upon it.
It is also baffling how, after receiving feedback to showcase his skills in places like substack and YouTube, the blogger somehow opted to post self-comisorating content and even lambast anyone who ever interviewed him for the audacity if picking someone else.
The blogger's knee jerk reaction of attacking anyone expressing anything but support as being "cynical" and "negative" also conveys the idea of someone being unable to receive feedback and even handle feedback well without lashing back. Handling feedback is a fundamental skill to work in a team environment. Attacking those who give it with ad-hominems such as "fresh-faced bay area 25 year old with a Steve Jobs complex" screams out toxic personality.
And those are the good aspects the blogger cherry-picked expecting to portray himself as the victim. God knows what's the actual impression their peers got from him.
> such as "fresh-faced bay area 25 year old with a Steve Jobs complex" screams out toxic personality.
Well... that may as well be a very clinical observation; I've lost count of how many I've met in interviewing rounds, on either side of the table or in my own teams. It wouldn't surprise me a lot of tech people go through such a phase, at some (hopefully as shortest as possible) point of their early career. I probably have.
It reveals a mediocre mindset and likely self undermining too… since most of those types are in fact smarter than the ~80th-90th percentile.
So it would have even worse implications for anyone complaining against them, who isn’t clearly way beyond that threshold.
> It reveals a mediocre mindset and likely self undermining too
It could.
> since most of those types are in fact smarter than the ~80th-90th percentile.
But you’re skipping the very issue of this mindset. Being smarter along a very specific scale of evaluation doesn’t make one de facto « smarter » in general, neither properly adjusted to work and collaborate in an organisation.
Denouncing arrogance might not be the best move in some context, but it is not a show of weakness.
How would this matter to a random passing reader?
They’re not going to assume the author is any more virtuous/wise/etc… than the complained against, without some compelling evidence.
Why should people refrain from stating what they see? It's his blog, why should he refrain to express himself? Why should you decide in his stead, what does matter or not to him to express?
A minor signal is still a signal, that may, or may not, accrue to other converging ones.
How does this relate to my prior two comments?
I don’t see the connection to how any random group of HN readers perceive this or that.