[pertymcpert]

If you didn't already know, jobs at highly competitive companies tend to have vague job requirements because they expect to be able to apply your raw intelligence to changing demands quickly. There's no point being hyper-specific about the exact software packages because that's not what they want. What they want is someone who, after talking to an interviewer for 30 minutes, leaves them with the thought "Wow, this person can do anything we need of them. They can probably tell us what we need too and take ownership of large projects. Hire!"

[moscoe]

Agree. Being smart, competent, and high in conscientiousness is more important than any highly specific “qualification”. It’s not about checking a bunch of boxes. If you have a track record of getting shit done, you’ll have something to contribute.

[orangelimesoda]

> There's no point being hyper-specific about the exact software packages because that's not what they want

Okay. This makes it sound like they're more sophisticated but it seems more like they are less sophisticated, less specific, and a lot more vague in the job descriptions they themselves create.

If you look at any technical role, game dev or something where people are building important things at scale - there are a lot of specifics. Libraries, methodologies, where if you didn't know them you are nowhere near a fit.

I'm just wondering. It's OpenAI. Surely there is some domain-specific something beyond "has experience shipping front-end and back-end services" since that includes basically everyone.

It makes this job look like a Starbucks role.

[devmor]

I see where you're coming from, but as someone who regularly interviews engineers, I don't care about specific tech stacks when evaluating a candidate very much either. I can only think of two positions I've worked in where such a thing really mattered.

A good engineer can adapt and catch up without a lot of lead time. For a contractor, I'd be much more specific - but for someone who's going to join my team? I'm looking for a candidate that can demonstrate their problem solving ability, creative thinking and communication skills.

Other than having some kind of experience in the general domain we work in, those "soft skills" are far harder to find than specific tech experience.

[rustystump]

This is insane to me.

Not every engineering job is entry level or as simple as most fullstack crud. Deeper into industry you find highly specific well defined positions for a given domain. Soft skills matter more the higher the ladder but id take a killer senior who can be difficult over a team of mediocre staff engineers.

[a34729t]

Yeah, no. If you are digging deep into database internals, query optimization and schema design, it helps to have someone with some experience in the domain. Otherwise your team will spend a few years learning from first principles.

[pertymcpert]

> I'm just wondering. It's OpenAI. Surely there is some domain-specific something beyond "has experience shipping front-end and back-end services" since that includes basically everyone.

Maybe you're looking at this from your own particular point of view too much. I work in systems software, as do many others on HN: our demographic wouldn't be qualified for that at all.

[_superposition_]

This. Being too specific on the stack requirements is a red flag imo.

[swat535]

> raw intelligence

I'm not sure how this would apply. Are you implying that if the company operates on Python, you can hire someone with great "raw intelligence" who have only developed C++ all their life, and they can start contributing on day 1?

You need to clearly list what the position entails, otherwise you're wasting time.

[yesb]

They are listing what the position entails. In this case it's a full-stack web dev role. "only c++ all their life" is more or less not possible if you have experience doing that

Likewise from another job post: "Have a strong background in kernel-level systems". Not possible if your whole resume is building web apps, may be possible for someone that has only used c++ professionally.

[pertymcpert]

> I'm not sure how this would apply. Are you implying that if the company operates on Python, you can hire someone with great "raw intelligence" who have only developed C++ all their life, and they can start contributing on day 1?

In your particular case, no not on day 1. But they can probably make meaningful contributions after 2 weeks. They'll pick it up quick because they're some of the best talent on the market.