How many of you commit minor meaningless changes to your own repositories to fill up those green squares...

How many of you commit minor meaningless changes to your own repositories to fill up those green squares? I used to be guilty of this until I realized exactly 0 employers have ever looked at my github

Attached: m-mommy.jpg (640x640, 46K)

>filename
nice touch user

>she got married to a black man
>Has 2 kids with him now

Kill me

Attached: 1533068055839.jpg (356x436, 17K)

Girl in OP or Abby? Shapiro got married to some beta kike

Attached: abigal mommy shapiro.png (556x435, 196K)

>imagine fucking her while she's hitting those high notes

so good

> Caring what future employers think of you
Just kill yourself desu

a true khazar milk maiden. built to lure in goy genes.

Quality != quantity

If a candidate for a software engineering or architecture job lists a github repo, I almost always check for activity and what kind of changes we’re done. If I see bs changes or history tweaking you still may get an interview, but expect additional tech questions and potentially spending more time at the whiteboard.

t.hiringmanager

nice larp my man, show us a paystub

lol hes not responding

Give him at least an hour man

I'd like to commit a change to her repository amirite

hhehehehehhehehehehhhh nice one bro hhh

Attached: busty_smoke3.gif (500x281, 764K)

That wouldn’t accomplish anything. It’s not like my payslip says “Mr. HiringManager, $X for services rendered”.

As I wrote, that’s the way I evaluate candidates. I’m not claiming I understand the code of every repo I’ve looked at, but obvious bullshit is pretty easy to spot. And it’s not like not having an active github profile immediately disqualifies a candidate. But it may contribute to the overall picture

Are you one of those hiring managers that has absolutely no idea what he's reading when he looks at a resume and just scans for keywords? Non-engineering hiring staff for engineering positions should be culled.

Keyword scanning is bullshit. I found the best cvs state what work a candidate did at a given position. I’m fully with you, hiring managers who haven’t ever or can’t write anymore code shouldn’t be allowed near engineers.

Then again a hiring managers job isn’t to evaluate the tech skills of a candidate at a deep level, but rather cut through all the bullshit so that the engineers don’t have to waste their time with unqualified candidates.

what's your criteria for hiring fresh grads? are you the kinda guy who expects like 19 internships and 5+ experience in multiple languages when a dude literally just finished his undergrad?

No, that’s retarded. With fresh grads I mostly look for potential and passion for the subject matter they’re working on. Can they explain core technology concepts at a detailed level, what have they done during their studies in terms of projects, do they code in their spare time. What’s their motivation for wanting to be in this field. That kinda thing.

Would you say that's as or perhaps more important than a compsci degree itself? I'm self taught but studying Physics, unsure of how I'll do applying for tech positions when I'm done.

That may depend on the company and job you’re applying for. If you’re applying for a research position at one of the big ones, they’ll probably want to see a CS degree, since you’re work will be more in that area. But if it’s a standard entry level engineering job, and the employer is looking for smart people, the physics degree will at least get you higher up in the pile.

Personally, I don’t hire degrees, I hire experience or potential. I got burned more than once by people holding an MS but couldn’t structure and organize their work for shit.

That's the whole point in getting a job

stay neet

i run a script every few code changes that pushes my shit. the commit message is always "m". fuck you.

disgusting cow

no cause I do commits for real cause I'm doing stuff for real. Please consider euthanasia.

dem diddies do.

Shut your foul mouth!

That's an awful looking pizza