Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Jones
Post #6
Hi Mr. Jones,
I hear you. All that is
great in fact, but what I'm hearing/seeing is that one of the
predominant things big and/or successful companies currently seek is
reliability in their human resources.
"Strong mathematical background," "logical thinker," "problem solver" perhaps
could be meaningful skill sets to x-business... but
can you (or perhaps more appropriately, are you
willing to) produce work that is consistent with this resumé of skill sets
reliably? In a manner that provides oft-advertised efficiency in whipping all these injustices into shape?
On one hand, YES you may have some moral, self-righteous argument about being "victimized" by the way things are -- just like every other human being may. And YES there are legitimate cases in which human beings have been truly "victimized" by some tragedy/human meanness that was no fault of their own. I say this as a way to address the "tilting" that you seemingly qualify as a justifiable action due to w/e circumstance that is beyond one's control.
But there also might come a point in which x-business requests
solutions (or at least some ideas for improving the issues you communicate) as a merit-based means to justify keeping you around (or hiring you in the first place). And if that's not going to be
forthcoming, then big and/or successful companies may simply move on to their own pursuits, and further their training of AI so it can provide the consistency/reliability that most humans simply will not over the course of a professional lifetime.
I'm not saying I like this other side of the argument any more than you do, but sh**'s getting competitive and the screws are getting gradually clamped down on human talent due to all the investment in machine learning. And obviously machines are superior manual laborers than humans, and come with far less liability/legacy costs.
It's a tough nut to crack. I'll give you that. But if it's any consolation, not ONE person in the poker world has EVER told me "hey, this position that you're obviously qualified for... you can't have it because you never finished high school and got a G.E.D." That's a true "positive" in my opinion, but it is still up to the individual and x-company whether they wish to enter into and perform within the boundaries of a genuine business partnership.
In the end, I feel some of this long-held defensiveness about expecting x-person or x-company to bow down to a potential collaborator's requests will be forced to come more into focus with the "reliability" and "consistency" aspect... especially when it comes to reasonably stable, full-time "jobs."
With that said, there will always be at least a few other opportunities that are a fit for independent-minded people who may not be in the market for full-time commitments, but in most cases I'd think the same reliability/consistency factors would apply for the agreed-upon tasks being performed.
I wish you well with it all. Let us know how it turns out.
-David