[jjmojojjmojo]

"the author" here (hi!)

I think you're making a lot of assumptions, maybe projecting a bit here? I didn't mention "money, reputation, office politics, big scale of projects, nice office, good networking and stability", or anything about what I was interested in. Not sure where all that's coming from.

I've actually been focused almost exclusively on startups, especially in the early stages. The last company I worked at was just me and the co-founders. This is actually where I thrive: we're growing, we're pivoting, we're accommodating a big customer, we're orienting toward an acquisition, and we need to get our stuff in order. I am the one who's going to make the hard calls, whip the processes into shape, generally get the product in order to facilitate the next steps, learn everything I can to make it all work on the fly. I live in the trenches, I wear all the hats, I do all the dirty work, and I love it. Watching a constantly failing application transform into a turnkey operation is so satisfying. And then it's on to the next challenge. I appreciate stability but I'm willing to sacrifice it for interesting problems and a big impact.

Anyway, I get the same gate checks from startups, even tiny ones, and sometimes they're even more invasive and seem to want even more excitement from an applicant. They're placing a form in front of me instead of seeking me out, and the ATS systems and platforms are making me disappear. I'm spending so much time trying to craft the right kind of response and so little time interviewing. It sucks. The broader point of my post was urging people hiring to be proactive about that task and reach out to applicants instead of pushing the responsibility off onto platforms.

You're also misinterpreting the passage you're directly quoting, which is not something I've seen, I think, ever.

I didn't say a company, any company, "will give you 'food shelter, health care and social mobility". I said "we need employment to access capital, or more specifically, food, shelter, health care and social mobility". And I said it was bleak, which you captured, but didn't see, I guess?

   "But that's not what you really want"

Yes. I do want my basic needs met. I don't know why you would think otherwise. And yes, it sucks that I have to exchange being awesome for those needs, and it sucks even more that I've got to jump through so many hoops just to even talk to someone.

I also framed that whole section with "A cynic may posit...". It's a cynical view.

I then followed that with:

   "Now, I'm not a cynic. While my overall worldview is deeply pragmatic, when it comes to the toil of labor, I'm uncharacteristically optimistic."

I meant that, and everything after that.

   "You can't have a cake and eat it too."

What cake is being offered here, exactly? :D

Anyway, none of this really matters, I have this thing about fixing incongruency when I see it.

I'm psyched you took the time to read what I wrote. I honestly do appreciate that. If the straw man you were replying to existed in the context of this conversation, I do think you're making some valid points. Thank you.

[ttoinou]

Great thank you ! I can only react to the text I am reading and yes I also read the text below nonetheless. In front of uncertainty humans fill the holes, and all the people who have a similar discourse than you could be good templates to fill the information missing :)

> The broader point of my post was urging people hiring to be proactive about that task and reach out to applicants instead of pushing the responsibility off onto platforms

Good !