It's a retrospective analysis of an assertion made by NYTimes. The original headline wasn't clickbait, just presumptive, and even so, it's a pretty significant publication that spends a lot of time on the HN front page (alongside you, I'll add). I think it's perfectly fair, and nowhere close to a strawman, to deconstruct that claim a year later.
I mean, I agree with your general point that copyright might need to be reconsidered, but this doesn't seem like an attempt to reconsider it. It's rather transparently enabling further cronyism.
Yes, so what this does is centralized that selective enforcement directly under politicized control, so that it can be weaponized against political enemies.
Interestingly (and anecdotally), as a 10-year+ experienced college dropout, I still see challenges getting hired for jobs that list degrees as a requirement. The only time I get a call back on "front door" applications is with the fateful addendum of "OR relevant work experience". (I wonder if agents and their lack of human discretion is amplifying this.) The article's assertion that a college degree still offers an edge beyond entry level still seems very much true.
If you haven't got a degree on your resume, it just gets autodropped at the application stage by an ATS. No human sees it. Same if you're missing keywords.
I know it seems awkward, but you can just lie on your resume. Most employers lie on their job ads, most applicants lie on their resumes. This is why the whole recruitment process is so broken.
reply