[ChrisMarshallNY]

> Also, from a hiring perspective, it's not scalable going through a candidates repos and verifying their worthiness. However, it is fun to talk about them during interviews.

I was a hiring manager for 25 years. I would have killed for this kind of information.

The people I hired were no slouches. It was a big deal, and not to be taken lightly. I loved multi-page résumés.

[gravypod]

For a long time when looking for work I got absolutely no callbacks. A friend looked at my Resume and said "You have this huge block of skills you say you have but you have no explanation for how you have them." I explained it was because I got most of my experience from working on OSS software or software for myself and if I listed everything my resume would be ~2 pages & ~4 sides. He said to go for it despite everyone else telling me at my age (18 at the time) my resume shouldn't be that long.

As soon as I listed everything I started getting calls back.

[b20000]

so this basically means people assume you are lying and a fraud, which is another problem that is not talked about enough - it should not be assumed that you are like that, until proven otherwise.

[Zababa]

Why? People lie a lot about their skills. The fizzbuzz test was invented a first to filter candidates that said they knew how to code but didn't, and it was very effective at it.

[b20000]

Being able to write software does not automatically imply you are able to write software while on a video call, and while explaining what you are doing constantly.

[Zababa]

True, this approach will cause false negatives. But from what I understand, most people in interviewing prefer false negatives to false positives.

[b20000]

Sure, they can go right ahead and keep preferring to pass on exceptional people and hire mediocre people instead who will entertain their circus. Sooner or later they'll find out that won't work so well to stay competitive.