I have noticed that, at least in the Java world, people lie a lot about stuff going "faster", and I think it's just justification to not fix their terrible code.
I have written a lot of JMH benchmarks in the last year to test out claims from developers (some are on my blog, a lot I haven't written about yet), and so much shit that's supposedly "faster" simply isn't.
For example, I had a coworker who would write all this logic into tons of nested and sequential `for` loops, and the logic was disgusting but lent itself well enough to the Java streams API. I brought this up to this coworker, and he said he wouldn't do that because the streams are "slower" and that he "benchmarked to check". I wrote my own JMH benchmark to check and it turns out that the streams (at least for an application like this) are not actually slower than the loops; the two versions ran within about 3% of each other's. I don't think he actually wrote benchmarks, I think he was just lying and wanted me to stop interrogating.
I suppose what you're saying isn't "wrong" but can we agree that this sucks?
Now every asshole has to try and co-opt "influencer" tactics and if you're not constantly writing bullshit that talks about how hard of a worker you are and ever push back on any corporate lies, now you have that attached to your resume.
I wouldn't write "Told someone that they probably didn't actually create ten billion dollars of value in a Fortune 10 company by age three" directly on my resume, but that's what happens on LinkedIn. It's terrible, and no one should defend it.
To paraphrase Hunter Thompson: we will never know for sure if there's a heaven or hell, but I do know for sure that if there is a hell then it's being stuck having to read through LinkedIn for eternity.
LinkedIn is easily the worst "social media" on the internet that I've been on. So much shit is "inspiration porn" for anecdotes that clearly never actually happened so that the person can try and brand themselves as some kind "corporate influencer". By itself this wouldn't bother me, except you pretty much have to have a LinkedIn now.
I generally think it's actually really important to call out bullshit, even stuff that's seemingly harmless (for reasons that are probably far beyond the scope of this post), but I don't respond to comments on LinkedIn anymore, because it's effectively a resume and I don't want these kind of opinions to influence hiring decisions.
And this makes me feel a bit conflicted, and it has led to a direct resentment of the entire platform. I kind of wish Microsoft would limit LinkedIn to purely resume stuff.
LinkedIn seems like the natural home (origin?) of those oh-so-inane "Motivator" management posters that were so popular in the 1990s. Now if only there were also an outlet there for the "Demotivator" posters that followed. THOSE I liked.
Yeah, it's horrible; I deleted my Facebook a decade ago because I hated what social media interaction was becoming and it was doing a number on my mental health. I deleted my old Twitter a few days ago, and I haven't done anything on Bluesky in months and I never used it much. The only social media I use regularly now is HN and SomethingAwful.
I would so love to just delete my LinkedIn, but you can't do that now. A lot of job applications require you give your LinkedIn. So I am stuck logging in occasionally. It's dystopian.
I didn’t say I wanted to lie about my personality. I said I wanted to tune my personality so that I do better in interviews. It’s subtly different; I wanted advice on putting my best foot forward, and I was wondering if people had ideas for doing so.
It’s not just about this one job, obviously it’s impossible to know what a single employer’s reasoning is for this stuff; I have just noticed a pattern of me being pretty bad at interviews, and being declined enough to where I probably need to make some kind of change. I am not asking for one simple hack to make friends, it’s fucking interview prep. I don’t think I have low social intelligence in most cases, I have never had much issue making friends or anything like that. I don’t dispute that I am probably annoying and I don’t think I am awesome.
It’s not like interviews are anything like actual human interaction in any meaningful sense, and clearly a lot of people must agree because there are dozens of specific “interview prep” services out there.
Employment is all about being a good fit for the employer, not about being a good developer. I am often not selected because I preference things that scares the shit out of most developers even if such things are hugely beneficial.
Interviews are just talking to people. Its not the same as a casual conversation, but its also not a hostile police interrogation. Nonetheless, its still just a conversation. If you imagine it to be something different then something different it becomes.
Yeah, I don't think I disagree with anything you said.
I was a little upset when I created the Ask HN, because I was pretty convinced that I was going to get this job and accidentally started getting preemptively excited. I try not to count my eggs before they hatch, but sometimes that's easier said than done. Easy to get into your own head and hate yourself a little when you feel rejected and frustrated.
My wife (who is awesome and supportive and cool) gave me a bit of a pep talk and it actually did make me feel better and I'm more or less alright now.
I gotta admit that it saddens me a little to think that calling myself a "wannabe-intellectual" or "eccentric" would have any connotation other than very mild self-deprecation, but I suppose it won't hurt to make it simpler in the shorter term.
> This really actually doesn't matter in many cases. These moments are perfect place for you to demonstrate humility and how you deal with feedback.
That's decent enough advice, but when people confidently "correct" me with something that's actively wrong, it's always a bit jarring to me. It takes me a like thirty seconds to parse their feedback, read to make sure that my code isn't wrong, and then process that I need to somehow respond to it. It's difficult to know what to say at that point.
I dunno. This post has given me a lot to think about.
> I gotta admit that it saddens me a little to think that calling myself a "wannabe-intellectual" or "eccentric" would have any connotation other than very mild self-deprecation, but I suppose it won't hurt to make it simpler in the shorter term.
Don't stress on changing that too much - it's unlikely that an interviewer is going as deep as your hacker news profile. Eccentric can mean flaky and unreliable. Wannabe can mean aspiring but perpetually falling short. Neither put your best foot forward. I merely pointed that out as something that if you're generally seeing that view of your self then you might be presenting that outward.
A good way of looking at the interview process is that you want to give out as many strong-hire signals as possible. You need to find ways to turn no-hire signals into weak hire signals. (E.g. silly little things like "I don't have experience with that, but I've worked with ... where ...", or "I <did something that didn't work out> but <learnt> and <carried that learning to succeed in ...>", and you definitely want 0 no-hire signals.
> That's decent enough advice, but when people confidently "correct" me with something that's actively wrong, it's always a bit jarring to me.
Sounds a bit like you might need to expose yourself to be challenged by external viewpoints more often. Find an open source product to contribute some fixes to and see how the PRs go paying particular note about the communication aspects.
BTW, you might want to reconsider the domain that your GitHub profile currently points at.
It's not just this one employer. It's been months and I've had pretty limited success. This has happened with dozens of employers and after a certain point I have to assume I'm doing something wrong.
I actually more or less did air all my dirty laundry on my first date with my wife, and we've been together since 2013, so at least that worked out ok.
Still overall I think I agree with you. I think most techy people tend to like me if they talk to me for awhile, but I can be kind of abrasive with initial impressions.
I'm just psychoanalyzing myself at this point; overall good advice...thanks!
> If I'm hiring someone, I want to like working with them, and if I find them ranting online, I just mark them as negative and pessimistic. I can't help it - that's human nature
I understand this, but we can agree that this kind of sucks, doesn't it? Everyone has bad days where they're frustrated about something and could write something a bit cynical in the process. I don't think that's reflective of their entire personality. From Ted Lasso:
> I hope that either all of us or none of us are judged by the actions of our weakest moments… but rather by the strength we show when, and if we’re ever given a second chance
Dunno, obviously you don't want someone who's a downer all the time, but I feel like the permanence of the internet can skew perspectives.
Sure, but when I've spent 30 mins talking to you and you look the same on paper as the other 5 competent candidates and I need to make a choice on who to hire, any data point that portrays you negatively is an easy way to narrow my decision.
I do a fair amount of public speaking (I've spoken at Lambda Days six times, the Clojure Conj once), and I was a university lecturer, so that stuff isn't too hard for me.
I'm definitely guilty of rambling though; it's pretty hard for me to do say concisely. I'm not 100% sure of the best way to get better at that.
Outside of some jobs requiring LinkedIn, I've never actually heard of anyone being declined for not having social media.
I haven't had a Facebook account since 2015, I don't have an Instagram and I hadn't updated my Twitter for years until I deleted it (about two hours ago). As far as I'm aware, a lack of social media presence hasn't been a factor.
> I've never actually heard of anyone being declined for not having social media
In late June 2025, the US announced that for inbound students from abroad it will be screening socials, and lack of an unlocked social footprint may be a disqualifier.
This brings the gov in line with private industry, as employers that do actual background checks (as opposed to, say, credit checks) are shown flags if socials are all locked or none exist.
This matters most in industries which are required by their regulators to do and/or maintain backgrounds.
I'm not sure why that would be suspicious. If I were planning nefarious stuff, it's not like it would be hard for me to make have a social media presence to fly under the radar.
I always say I am the type of person who would post too often so instead of having social media I just read non-fiction books.
So far no one has held being well read against me.
Often, it flips to a book recommendation actually. At that point good luck with your social media when I pick a book that fits perfectly in with the marketing of myself getting the job, create a whole interesting conversation in that direction, while they read some inane nonsense from the social media poster.
I have written a lot of JMH benchmarks in the last year to test out claims from developers (some are on my blog, a lot I haven't written about yet), and so much shit that's supposedly "faster" simply isn't.
For example, I had a coworker who would write all this logic into tons of nested and sequential `for` loops, and the logic was disgusting but lent itself well enough to the Java streams API. I brought this up to this coworker, and he said he wouldn't do that because the streams are "slower" and that he "benchmarked to check". I wrote my own JMH benchmark to check and it turns out that the streams (at least for an application like this) are not actually slower than the loops; the two versions ran within about 3% of each other's. I don't think he actually wrote benchmarks, I think he was just lying and wanted me to stop interrogating.