The 10X Engineer? More Trouble Than They Are Worth
April 25, 2025
Dinobaby, here. No smart software involved unlike some outfits. I did use Sam AI-Man’s art system to produce the illustration in the blog post.
I like it when I spot a dinobaby fellow traveler. That happened this morning (March 28, 2025) when I saw the headline “In Praise of Normal Engineers: A Software Engineer Argues Against the Myth of the 10x Engineer.”
The IEEE Spectrum article states:
I don’t have a problem with the idea that there are engineers who are 10 times as productive as other engineers. The problems I do have are twofold.
Everyone is amazed that the 10X engineer does amazing things. Does the fellow become the model for other engineers in the office? Not for the other engineers. But the boss loves this super performer. Thanks, OpenAI, good enough.
The two “problems” — note the word “problems” are:
- “Measuring productivity.” That is an understatement, not a problem. With “engineers” working from home or in my case a far off foreign country, a hospital waiting room, or playing video games six fee from me productivity is a slippery business.
- “Teams own software.” Alas, that is indeed true. In 1962, I used IBM manuals to “create” a way to index. The professor who paid me $3 / hour was thrilled. I kept doing this indexing thing until the fellow died when I started graduate school. Since then, whipping up software confections required “teams.” Why? I figured out that my indexing trick was pure good fortune. After that, I made darned sure there were other eyes and minds chugging along by my side.
The write up says:
A truly great engineering organization is one where perfectly normal, workaday software engineers, with decent skills and an ordinary amount of expertise, can consistently move fast, ship code, respond to users, understand the systems they’ve built, and move the business forward a little bit more, day by day, week by week.
I like this statement. And here’s another from the article:
The best engineering orgs are not the ones with the smartest, most experienced people in the world. They’re the ones where normal software engineers can consistently make progress, deliver value to users, and move the business forward. Places where engineers can have a large impact are a magnet for top performers. Nothing makes engineers happier than building things, solving problems, and making progress.
Happy workers are magnets.
Now let’s come back to the 10X idea. I used to work at a company which provided nuclear engineering services to the US government and a handful of commercial firms engaged in the nuclear industry. We had a real live 10X type. He could crank out “stuff” with little effort. Among the 600 nuclear engineers employed at this organization, he was the 10X person. Everyone liked him, but he did not have much to say. In fact, his accent made what he said almost impenetrable. He just showed up every day in a plaid coat, doodled on a yellow pad, and handed dot points, a flow chart, or a calculation to another nuclear engineer and went back to doodling.
Absolutely no one at the nuclear engineering firm wanted to be a 10X engineer. From my years of working at this firm, he was a bit of a one-off. When suits visited, a small parade would troop up to his office on the second floor. He shared that with my close friend, Dr. James Terwilliger. Everyone would smile and look at the green board. Then they would troop out and off to lunch.
I think the presence of this 10X person was a plus for the company. The idea of trying to find another individual who could do the nuclear “stuff” like this fellow was laughable. For some reason, the 10X person liked me, and I got the informal job of accompanying to certain engagements. I left that outfit after several years to hook up with a blue chip consulting firm. I lost track of the 10X person, but I had the learnings necessary to recognize possible 10X types. That was a useful addition to my bag of survival tips as a minus 3 thinker.
Net net: The presence of a 10X is a plus. Ignoring the other 599 engineers is a grave mistake. The errors of this 10X approach are quite evident today: Unchecked privacy violations, monopolistic behaviors enabled by people who cannot set up a new mobile phone, and a distortion of what it means to be responsible, ethical, and moral.
The 10X concept is little more than a way to make the top one percent the reason for success. Their presence is a positive, but building to rely on 10X anything is one of the main contributing factors to the slow degradation of computer services, ease of use, and, in my opinion, social cohesion.
Engineers are important. The unicorn engineers are important. Balance is important. Without out balance “stuff” goes off the rails. And that’s where we are.
Stephen E Arnold, April xx, 2025
Synthetic Data: It Sucks, Says Designers
April 25, 2025
Some would argue taking actual customers out of market research is a bad idea. Smashing Magazine supports that reasonable perspective in, “How to Argue Against AI-First Research.” Yes, some AI enthusiasts praise synthetic user testing as a valuable new tool. The practice is exactly what it sounds like—using LLMs to build fake customers and performing market research on them. Admittedly, it is much faster and cheaper than surveying actual humans. But what good is that if the results are bad? Writer Vitaly Friedman explains:
“When ‘producing’ user insights, LLMs can’t generate unexpected things beyond what we’re already asking about. In comparison, researchers are only able to define what’s relevant as the process unfolds. In actual user testing, insights can help shift priorities or radically reimagine the problem we’re trying to solve, as well as potential business outcomes. Real insights come from unexpected behavior, from reading behavioral clues and emotions, from observing a person doing the opposite of what they said. We can’t replicate it with LLMs.”
But budgets are tight. Isn’t synthetic user data better than nothing? No. No it is not. We learn:
“Pavel Samsonov articulates that things that sound like customers might say them are worthless. But things that customers actually have said, done, or experienced carry inherent value (although they could be exaggerated). We just need to interpret them correctly. AI user research isn’t ‘better than nothing’ or ‘more effective.’ It creates an illusion of customer experiences that never happened and are at best good guesses but at worst misleading and non-applicable.”
Not only that, cutting real customers out of the equation means not catching AI errors. And there will be errors. Furthermore, emphasizes Friedman:
“Synthetic testing assumes that people fit in well-defined boxes, which is rarely true. Human behavior is shaped by our experiences, situations, habits that can’t be replicated by text generation alone. AI strengthens biases, supports hunches, and amplifies stereotypes.”
All of which could send marketing dollars down the wrong, unprofitable track. As suspicious as we are of AI hype, even we can admit the tech is good for some things. Market research perhaps is not a core competency.
Cynthia Murrell, April 25, 2025
AI Crawlers Are Bullying Open Source: Stop Grousing and Go Away
April 25, 2025
AI algorithms are built on open source technology. Unfortunately generative AI is harming its mother code explains TechDirt: “AI Crawlers Are Harming Wikimedia, Bringing Open Source Sites To Their Knees, And Putting The Open Web At Risk.” To make generative AI work you need a lot of computer power, smart coding, and mounds of training data. Money can buy coding and power, but (quality) training data is incredibly difficult to obtain.
AI crawlers were unleashed on the Internet to scrap information and use it for training models. The biggest information providers for crawlers are Wikimedia projects and it’s a big problem. Wikimedia, which claims to be “the largest collection of open knowledge in the world,” says most of its traffic is from crawlers and it is eating into costs:
“Since January 2024, we have seen the bandwidth used for downloading multimedia content grow by 50%. This increase is not coming from human readers, but largely from automated programs that scrape the Wikimedia Commons image catalog of openly licensed images to feed images to AI models. Our infrastructure is built to sustain sudden traffic spikes from humans during high-interest events, but the amount of traffic generated by scraper bots is unprecedented and presents growing risks and costs.”
This is bad because it is straining the Wikimedia datacenter and budgetary resources. Wikimedia isn’t the only information source feeling the burn from AI crawlers. News sites and more are being wrung by crawlers for every decimal of information:
“It’s increasingly clear that the reckless and selfish way in which AI crawlers are being deployed by companies eager to tap into today’s AI hype is bringing many sites around the Internet to their knees. As a result, AI crawlers are beginning to threaten the open Web itself, and thus the frictionless access to knowledge that it has provided to general users for the last 30 years.”
Silicon Valley might have good intentions but dollars are more important. (Oh, I am not sure about the “good intentions.”)
Whitney Grace, April 25, 2025
Now a Magazine Figures Out Why Its Circulation Sucks: Clueless People Do Not Subscribe
April 24, 2025
Sadly I am a dinobaby and too old and stupid to use smart software to create really wonderful short blog posts.I read an essay in a business magazine much loved by those former colleagues I enjoyed at the blue-chip consulting firm where once I worked as a jejune dinobaby. The publication called itself a “newspaper,” but it looked like a magazine to me. The tone was a bit more breezy than the documents cranked out by the blue-chip consulting firm. But the general approach was the same: We know so much more than you. We can, therefore, explain the basics of India’s poverty, the new jet engine from Rolls Royce, or the mysteries of the US home loan system.
That “newspaper” is the Economist. Don’t get me wrong. Like the approach of the British debate teams, my colleague and I faced in college, the faces change but the tone and attitude persists. Too bad we won more debate competitions against British teams than we lost, and it sure wasn’t because we were smarmy.
Not surprisingly I read “Too Many Adults Are Absolutely Clueless.” Yep, the same fingerprints appeared on this story. The main idea is that “adults” — you are supposed to insert fat Americans for this token — are stupid. Okay, I am not sure this is news to anyone who has bumped into students in America. I grew up in a bubble. Lucky me. Then for one year I found myself teaching in a US high school in a “poor section” of a Midwestern city.
Guess what?
On day one I figured out that the majority of the students in my charge were not what my life experiences taught me to view as “smart.” When was this? Last month, five years ago? Nope. I did this one year’s work in 1968 when I switched from the PhD program at Duquesne University to the University of Illinois so I could study with one of my mentors. As I recall, the students in the program which I was hired to “manage” and teach was called “The CWS Program” or Cooperative Work Study Program. I won’t go into details, but here is a quick snapshot of what I learned almost a half century ago:
- The students, aged 14 to 17, came from homes in which two parents were exceptions
- The students were unable to read the provided text books and, as my team learned, the sports pages and funny papers were out of reach.
- Many of the students came to school to fool around or to fill time when there weren’t more interesting things to do in the area in which they lived or slept
- The students in the CWS program were there because they had brushes with the law and were released to their parent or guardian from a detention center if they agreed to go to school and participate in the CWS program. (Translation: Most were guilty of minor crimes like shoplifting clothes and food. A few were guilty of assault and gang related activities)
- The academic level of these students —- buckle up, buttercup — was not significantly different from the performance of the students in the non-CWS population of this particular high school.
Now in the spring of 2025 I learn that the Economist, a publication which has been fighting to keep up its paid circulation to blue-chip consultant types and their ilk, has discovered that American students and young adults lack basic skills.
What? Where have you newspaper ostriches been for the last 50 years? Perhaps the folks at the down-home Economist have not visited Blackpool, England, lately. That’s an example of what’s shaking in the intellectually thriving atmosphere of the sceptered isle.
The write up asks:
Need to change a tyre or file your taxes? In America, “adulting” courses can help
The courses won’t help. The problems in education and “adulting” have anchored their roots deep in society. A couple of classes will not fill in what is missed when:
- Families remain intact
- Kids and adults have enough to eat and a place to sleep
- A supporting, learning-oriented social environment.
Today’s information flows have simply accelerated the erosion of learning “basic things” like threading a needle, putting oil in a vehicle, and understanding that credit card bills have to be paid with actual fiat currency. (Visa UK is keen on hooking a credit card to crypto currency, so good luck with that.)
Now why doesn’t the Economist have a larger and fast growing subscriber base? The number of individuals who can make sense of the articles is a tiny percentage of a large set of potential subscribers. Like learning how to fix a broken dish, semi-esoteric writing is too much work.
If you want to reach people, make a short video and post it on TikTok. If you want to catch my attention, write about something that is not exactly a recycling of the modern equivalent of ancient history.
China has a lot more fun pointing out the problems of the US with its aggressive China Smart, US Dumb content marketing than writing about a class in Austin, Texas.
Net net: Yeah, grow up. Plus I would add, “Write about fixing up Blackpool while considering who is clueless.”
Stephen E Arnold, April 24, 2025
Zuckerberg Wants WhatsApp To Compete With Telegram
April 24, 2025
After 13 years of just borrowing Telegram’s innovations, the Zucker wants to compete with Telegram. (Wasn’t Pavel Durov arrested?)
Mark Zuckerberg is ready to bring WhatsApp to the messaging race and he plans to give Telegram and Signal a run for their money. Life Hacker posted a press release about the updates to the message app: “WhatsApp Just Announced a Dozen New Features.”
Group chats are getting a major overhaul. There will be an indicator that shows who has WhatsApp open in real time. This will allow users to see how many people are active on a threat. There will also be a “Notify for” section in group chat settings for managing thread notifications and there will be a “Highlights” option to limit what alerts users. The option to create events will be extended to one-on-one chats. Apple iPhone users get the exclusive update of a built-in document scanner and WhatsApp can now be set as the default message app.
Calls have been updated too:
You’ll notice three new features when placing calls. On iOS, you can pinch to zoom when on a video call. This works on both your video feed, as well as the feed of the person you’re talking to…You can now add a friend to a one-on-one call by swiping over to their chat, tapping the call button, and choose "Add to call.”…Finally, WhatsApp says they’ve upgraded their video call tech, optimizing the routing system and boosting bandwidth detection.”
Updates will has some important changes:
“There are also three changes to the Updates tab: Channel admins can record and post videos to their followers directly from the app (though these videos need to be 60 seconds or less). You can also see a transcription of voice messages updates in channels, and channel admins can share QR codes to link to the channel.”
Why not implement the live video, the crypto wallet, and the bots? Oh, right. Those are harder to emulate.
Whitney Grace, April 24, 2025
Hey, We Know This Is Fake News: Sharing Secrets on Signal
April 24, 2025
Some government professionals allegedly blundered when they accidentally shared secret information via Signal with a reporter. The reporter, by the way, is not a person who wears a fedora with a command on it. To some, sharing close-hold information is an oopsie, but doing so with a non-hat wearing reporter is special. The BBC explained what the fallout will be from this mistake: “Why Is It A Problem If Yemen Strike Plans Shared On Signal?”
The Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg alleged received close-hold information via a free messaging application. A government professional seemed to agree that the messages appeared to be authentic. Hey, a free application is a cost reducer. Plus, Signal is believed to be encrypted end to end and super secure to boot. Signal is believed to be the “whisper network” of Washington D., an area known for its appropriate behavior and penchant for secrecy. (What was Wilbur Mills doing in the reflecting pool?)
While the messages are encrypted, bad actors (particularly those who may or may not be pals of the United States) allegedly can penetrate the Signal system. The Google Threat Intelligence Group noticed that Russia’s intelligence services have stepped up their hacking activities. Well, maybe or maybe not. Google is the leader in online advertising, but its “cyber security” expertise was acquired and may not be Googley yet.
The US government is not encouraging use of free messaging apps for sensitive information. That’s good. And the Pentagon is not too keen on a system not authorized to transmit non-public Department of Defense information. That’s good to know.
The whole sharing thing presents a potential downside for whomever is responsible for the misstep. The article says:
“Sensitive government communications are required to take place in a sealed-off room called a Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF), where mobile phones are generally forbidden. The US government has other systems in place to communicate classified information, including the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System (JWICS) and the Secret Internet Protocol Router (SIPR) network, which top government officials can access via specifically configured laptops and phones.”
Will there be consequences?
The article points out that the slip betwixt the cup and the lip may have violated two Federal laws:
“If confirmed, that would raise questions about two federal laws that require the preservation of government records: the Presidential Records Act and the Federal Records Act. "The law requires that electronic messages that take place on a non-official account are preserved, in some fashion, on an official electronic record keeping system," said Jason R Baron, a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration. Such regulations would cover Signal, he said.”
Hey, wasn’t the National Archive the agent interrupting normal business and holiday activities at a high profile resort residence in Florida recently? What does that outfit know about the best way to share sensitive information?
Whitney Grace, April 24, 2025
Israel Military: An Alleged Lapse via the Cloud
April 23, 2025
No AI, just a dinobaby watching the world respond to the tech bros.
Israel is one of the countries producing a range of intelware and policeware products. These have been adopted in a number of countries. Security-related issues involving software and systems in the country are on my radar. I noted the write up “Israeli Air Force Pilots Exposed Classified Information, Including Preparations for Striking Iran.” I do not know if the write up is accurate. My attempts to verify did not produce results which made me confident about the accuracy of the Haaretz article. Based on the write up, the key points seem to be:
- Another security lapse, possibly more severe than that which contributed to the October 2023 matter
- Classified information was uploaded to a cloud service, possibly Click Portal, associated with Microsoft’s Azure and the SharePoint content management system. Haaretz asserts: “… it [MSFT Azure SharePoint Click Portal] enables users to hold video calls and chats, create documents using Office applications, and share files.”
- Documents were possibly scanned using CamScanner, A Chinese mobile app rolled out in 2010. The app is available from the Russian version of the Apple App Store. A CamScanner app is available from the Google Play Store; however, I elected to not download the app.
Modern interfaces can confuse users. Lack of training rigor and dashboards can create a security problem for many users. Thanks, Open AI, good enough.
Haaretz’s story presents this information:
Officials from the IDF’s Information Security Department were always aware of this risk, and require users to sign a statement that they adhere to information security guidelines. This declaration did not prevent some users from ignoring the guidelines. For example, any user could easily find documents uploaded by members of the Air Force’s elite Squadron 69.
Regarding the China-linked CamScanner software, Haaretz offers this information:
… several files that were uploaded to the system had been scanned using CamScanner. These included a duty roster and biannual training schedules, two classified training presentations outlining methods for dealing with enemy weaponry, and even training materials for operating classified weapons systems.
Regarding security procedures, Haaretz states:
According to standard IDF regulations, even discussing classified matters near mobile phones is prohibited, due to concerns about eavesdropping. Scanning such materials using a phone is, all the more so, strictly forbidden…According to the Click Portal usage guidelines, only unclassified files can be uploaded to the system. This is the lowest level of classification, followed by restricted, confidential, secret and top secret classifications.
The military unit involved was allegedly Squadron 69 which could be the General Staff Reconnaissance Unit. The group might be involved in war planning and fighting against the adversaries of Israel. Haaretz asserts that other units’ sensitive information was exposed within the MSFT Azure SharePoint Click Portal system.
Several observations seem to be warranted:
- Overly complicated systems involving multiple products increase the likelihood of access control issues. Either operators are not well trained or the interfaces and options confuse an operator so errors result
- The training of those involved in sensitive information access and handling has to be made more rigorous despite the tendency to “go through the motions” and move on in many professionals undergoing specialized instruction
- The “brand” of Israel’s security systems and procedures has taken another hit with the allegations spelled out by Haaretz. October 2023 and now Squadron 69. This raises the question, “What else is not buttoned up and ready for inspection in the Israel security sector?
Net net: I don’t want to accept this write up as 100 percent accurate. I don’t want to point the finger of blame at any one individual, government entity, or commercial enterprise. But security issues and Microsoft seem to be similar to ham and eggs and peanut butter and jelly from this dinobaby’s point of view.
Stephen E Arnold, April 23, 2025
Microsoft and Its Modern Management Method: Waffling
April 23, 2025
No AI, just the dinobaby himself.
The Harvard Business School (which I assume will remain open for “business”) has not addressed its case writers to focus on Microsoft’s modern management method. To me, changing direction is not a pivot; it is a variant of waffling. “Waffling” means saying one thing like “We love OpenAI.” Then hiring people who don’t love OpenAI and cutting deals with other AI outfits. The whipped cream on the waffle is killing off investments in data centers.
If you are not following this, think of the old song “The first time is the last time,” and you might get a sense of the confusion that results from changes in strategic and tactical direction. You may find this GenX, Y and Z approach just fine. I think it is a hoot.
PC Gamer, definitely not the Harvard Business Review, tackles one example of Microsoft’s waffling in “Microsoft Pulls Out of Two Big Data Centre Deals Because It Reportedly Doesn’t Want to Support More OpenAI Training Workloads.”
The write up says:
Microsoft has pulled out of deals to lease its data centres for additional training of OpenAI’s language model ChatGPT. This news seems surprising given the perceived popularity of the model, but the field of AI technology is a contentious one, for a lot of good reasons. The combination of high running cost, relatively low returns, and increasing competition—plus working on it’s own sickening AI-made Quake 2 demo—have proven enough reason for Microsoft to bow out of two gigawatt worth of projects across the US and Europe.
I love the scholarly “sickening.” Listen up, HBR editors. That’s a management term for 2025.
The article adds:
Microsoft, as well as its investors, have witnessed this relatively slow payoff alongside the rise of competitor models such as China’s Deepseek.
Yep, “payoff.” The Harvard Business School’s professors are probably not familiar with the concept of a payoff.
The news report points out that Microsoft is definitely, 100 percent going to spend $80 billion on infrastructure in 2025. With eight months left in the year, the Softies have to get in gear. The Google is spending as well. The other big time high tech AI juggernauts are also spending.
Will these investments payoff? Sure. Accountants and chief financial officers learn how to perform number magic. Guess where? Schools like the HBS. Don’t waffle. Go to class. Learn and then implement big time waffling.
Stephen E Arnold, April 23, 2025
Management Challenges in Russian IT Outfits
April 23, 2025
Believe it or not, no smart software. Just a dumb and skeptical dinobaby.
Don’t ask me how, but I stumbled upon a Web site called PCNews.ru. I was curious, so fired up the ever-reliable Google Translate and checked out what “news” about “PCs” meant to the Web site creator. One article surprised me. If I reproduce the Russian title it will be garbled by the truly remarkable WordPress system I have been using since 2008. The title of this article in English courtesy of the outfit that makes services available for free is, “Systemic Absurdity: How Bureaucracy and Algorithms Replace Meaning.”
One thing surprised me. The author was definitely annoyed by bureaucracy. He offers some interesting examples. I can’t use these in my lectures, but I found sufficiently different to warrant my writing this blog post.
Here are three examples:
- “Bureaucracy is the triumph of reason, where KPIs are becoming a new religion. According to Harvard Business Review (2021), 73% of employees do not see the connection between their actions and the company’s mission.”
- 41 percent of the time “military personnel in the EU is spent on complying with regulations”
- “In 45% of US hospitals, diagnoses are deliberately complicated (JAMA Internal Medicine, 2022)”
Sporty examples indeed.
The author seems conversant with American blue chip consultant outputs; for example, and I quote:
- 42% of employees who regularly help others face a negative performance evaluation due to "distraction from core tasks". Harvard Business Review (2022)
- 82% of managers believe cross-functional collaboration is risky (Deloitte, Global Human Capital Trends special report 2021).
- 61% of managers believe that cross-functional assistance “reduces personal productivity.” “The Collaboration Paradox” Deloitte (2021)
Where is the author going with his anti-bureaucracy approach? Here’s a clue:
I once completed training under the MS program and even thought about getting certified? Do they teach anything special there and do they give anything that is not in the documentation on the vendor’s website/books/Internet? No.
I think this means that training and acquiring certifications is another bureaucratic process disconnected from technical performance.
The author then brings up the issue of competence versus appearance. He writes or quotes (I can’t tell which):
"A study by Hamermesh and Park (2011) showed that attractive people earn on average 10-15% more than their less attractive colleagues. The work of Timasin et al. (2017) found that candidates with an attractive appearance are 30% more likely to receive job offers, all other things being equal. In a study by Harvard Business Review (2019), managers were more likely to recommend promotion to employees with a "successful appearance", associating them with leadership qualities"
The essay appears to be heading toward a conclusion about technical management, qualifications, and work. The author identifies “remedies” to these issues associated with technical work in an organization. The fixes include:
- Meta regulations; that is, rules for creating rules
- Qualitative, not just quantitative, assessments of an individual’s performance
- Turquoise Organizations
This phrase refers to an approach to management which emphasizes self management and an organic approach to changing an organization and its processes.
The write up is interesting because it suggests that the use of a rigid bureaucracy, smart software, and lots of people produces sub optimal performance. I would hazard a guess that the author feels as though his/her work has not been valued highly. My hunch is that the inclusion of the “be good looking to get promoted” suggests the author is unlikely to be retained to participate in Fashion Week in Paris.
An annoyed IT person, regardless of country and citizenship, can be a frisky critter if not managed effectively. I wonder if the redactions in the documents submitted by Meta were the work of a happy camper or an annoyed one? With Google layoffs, will some of these capable individuals harbor a grudge and take some unexpected decisions about their experiences.
Interesting write up. Amazing how much US management consulting jibber jab the author reads and recycles.
Stephen E Arnold, April 23, 2025
Honesty and Integrity? Are You Kidding Me?
April 23, 2025
No AI, just the dinobaby himself.
I read a blog post which begins with a commercial and self promotion. That allowed me to jump to the actual write up which contains a couple of interesting comments. The write up is about hiring a programmer, coder, or developer right now.
The write up is “Tech Hiring: Is This an Inflection Point?” The answer is, “Yes.” Okay, now what is the interesting part of the article? The author identifies methods of “hiring” which includes interviewing and determining expertise which no longer work.
These methods are:
- Coding challenges done at home
- Exercises done remotely
- Posting jobs on LinkedIn.
Why don’t these methods work?
The answer is, “Job applicants doing anything remotely and under self-supervision cheat. Okay, that explains the words “honesty” and “integrity” in the headline to my blog post.
It does not take a rocket scientist or a person who gives one lecture a year to figure out what works. In case you are wondering, the article says, “Real person interviews.” Okay, I understand. That’s the way getting a job worked before the remote working, Zoom interviews, and AI revolutions took place. Also, one must not forget Covid. Okay, I remember. I did not catch Covid, and I did not change anything about my work routine or daily life. But I did wear a quite nifty super duper mask to demonstrate my concern for others. (Keep in mind that I used to work at Halliburton Nuclear, and I am not sure social sensitivity was a must-have for that work.)
Several observations:
- Common sense is presented as a great insight. Sigh.
- Watching a live prospect do work yields high value information. But the observer must not doom scroll or watch TikToks in my opinion.
- Allowing the candidate to speak with other potential colleagues and getting direct feedback delivers another pick up truck of actionable information.
Now what’s the stand out observation in the self-promotional write up?
LinkedIn is losing value.
I find that interesting. I have noticed that the service seems to be struggling to generate interest and engagement. I don’t pay for LinkedIn. I am 80, and I don’t want to bond, interact, or share with individuals whom I will never meet in the short time I have left to bedevil readers of this Beyond Search post.
I think Microsoft is taking the same approach to LinkedIn that it has to the problem of security for its operating systems, the reliability of its updates, and the amazingly weird indifference to flaws in the cloud synchronization service.
That’s useful information. And, no, I won’t be attending the author’s one lecture a year, subscribing to his for fee newsletter, or listening to his podcast. Stating the obvious is not my cup of tea. But I liked the point about LinkedIn and the implications about honesty and integrity.
Stephen E Arnold, April 23, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
