Ask HN: Who is hiring? (June 2025)

Hacker News Discussion ↗

Remote vs. onsite and location nuances

  • Many roles are “remote” but constrained by geography (US-only, EU-only, specific time zones, or proximity to major cities).
  • Several posts sparked clarification: e.g., jobs advertised as “NYC” but actually in nearby cities, or hybrid roles marketed as remote.
  • Candidates asked how strictly companies interpret location windows (e.g., “GMT±3” and whether India or 3‑hour flights to London qualify).

Hiring practices, repeat postings, and skepticism

  • Multiple companies were called out for posting the “same job every month” with reports of auto‑rejections despite strong resumes, leading to accusations of resume farming or “ghost” roles.
  • One company was explicitly accused of “fake hiring”; moderators removed the accusation from the job’s subthread and noted it’s hard to adjudicate such claims.
  • Suggestions included pruning older postings or requiring evidence of actual hiring when roles are repeatedly advertised.

Compensation, workload, and culture

  • Some salary ranges drew criticism for being low relative to location (e.g., NYC roles under six figures, junior global roles at $12–36k). Others were praised for strong comp and equity.
  • A few startups openly emphasized intense cultures (7‑day workweeks, long hours, in‑office requirements), which some readers found off‑putting.
  • There was visible enthusiasm for “mission‑driven” work in healthcare, climate, politics, and education, with several commenters saying the mission attracted them even if the bar felt intimidating.

Application experience and friction

  • People reported issues with careers sites and forms: broken links, no place to upload a resume or cover letter, “bot detection” blocking submissions, or required cover letters turning candidates away.
  • Some noted auto‑rejection with no feedback, even after passing tests, which reinforced suspicions about non‑serious or pipeline‑only hiring.

Community interaction and tone

  • The thread included light banter (puns, national pride, playful prompt‑injection in a job ad) alongside serious questions about remote eligibility and process fairness.
  • Several posters followed up to clarify policies or fix links after reader feedback, showing some responsiveness to the community.