Even if the suggestions are a bit too generic, they might click for someone some time after they've read it. It also helps validate some things that less experienced programmers might be doing but aren't sure are the best things. I for example found that some things I seem to be gravitating towards are mentioned, which will hopefully allow me to focus on them and grasp them better in the future.
I might be, being miss-interpreted as dismissing this article.
They are definitely good points, and doesn't hurt to read them.
I think all the points are valid.
Maybe I was just contemplating how experts sometimes 'summarize' their knowledge, condense it, but in the process of trying to be succinct, becomes itself un-fathomable, generic.
I suspect that the unfathomable nature of condensed knowledge arises from the fact that there is simply no shortcut to expertise. You must earn it through experience.
Someone with a similar level of experience to the author may well have the right foundations to draw on such that a condensed expression of an idea resonates well. Others may only get a "seed pearl" to help shape how they view their past and future experiences. And some might be able to recognise that there is wisdom there, but not be able to relate it to their own understanding at all.
Without any relevant experience, it's just words devoid of much meaning.
There are a couple of reasons I think online job applications are so spammy:
1. Sometimes the companies don't adhere to the requirements they posted. For example the job post might list skills A, B, and C with a minimum of 3+ years, but some of my friends recommended that I apply anyway. I don't track such cases but I think I got a couple of responses when I did that.
2. Some companies leave job posts up after they've been filled, or ghost candidates during the interview process, so candidates tend to spam to ensure that even if a small fraction replied, they'd get at least one offer.
I'd assume that contacting hiring managers directly might lead to better chances, but aren't 200 other people doing the same?
Hi, I'm Tarek! I recently graduated from Cairo University with a
degree in Computer Engineering. I have about two years of professional
experience, as well as several years working on my own projects. I'm
passionate about software development and low-level programming in
particular. In my last big project, I worked as an open-source
contributor during Google Summer of Code, where I spent 6 months
porting the rendering code of an application (splashmapper.xyz) to
work on the Raspberry Pi 4.
Everyone overhired the last 3 years thinking the good times were forever. They’re probably overloaded with roles they don’t need anymore and have needs in other places so it really doesn’t make sense to keep folks.
I assume video-game sales went up during the stay-at-home pandemic years; with that now behind us, this isn’t surprising at all. In fact, I’m surprised this didn’t already happen a year ago.
It did indeed start a year ago. Main reason it's ramping up so rapidly in the last 6 months is that games were released (in what many would consider an amazing years for games in 2023) and layoffs tend to happen a bit after shipping (to get launch bugs). But with the current economy the layoffs are more severe.
Another less talked about point is GaaS. Many, many studios were trying to ramp up games with continuous revenue streams, and that needs a big investment and risk. It's not ubcommon to launch 10 GaaS expecting 7 to fail and 1 to easily pay for the other 9's developments. That's a great strategy with free money. Awful when you need to weather a storm. And now we're on that storm. Even studios with successful GaaS have to reel back, so most games in development are SoL.
So, not surprising but the volume this year is immense.
> Everyone overhired the last 3 years thinking the good times were forever.
It's very convenient that this isn't measurable and if you asked anyone in the industry at the time they most likely would have said "We don't have nearly enough" people.
I don't like the term "overhiring" in these discussions because it implies that these studios didn't estimate the costs of development and see layoffs as a mark of failure.
Neither are true. They took a gamble with low risk and the low risk became normal risk. Layoffs often come with a small stock rise, so they aren't even shamed by shareholders for trimming down. It's devastating for employee morale but that's rarely a factor in these decisions.
