I'm not sure what the article actually has to say about the topic it presents. It seems to want to be something about not hiring junior talent (something by the way not restricted to the tech industry) but instead it ends up more a critique about people wanting to use a waterfall pipeline.

▲ sscaryterry 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Double negative title implies clickbait :)

▲ 1970-01-01 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm just staring at the title, wondering how this offensive, double-and-a-half-negative phrase made it all the way to the frontpage. I'm going to skip this one for that obvious reason.

▲ teach 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I agree with the sibling comment and also don't understand how the title is "offensive". I literally can't think of anything that could be offensive about any term in the title or the title as a whole.

▲

2 days ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

1970-01-01 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It's the logic that is offensive. Mimically restated - The title isn't incorrect but it won't be misunderstood by few.

A synonym for offensive is disgusting.

	▲	teach 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Okay, that's an interesting complaint and I can understand it. For me, the title is QUITE clear. There's a very strong narrative in the zeitgeist that "no one" is hiring entry level jobs anymore because they're being replaced with AI. There's some pretty solid hiring data for CS grads, at least, that backs this up, even when controlling for the down economy as a whole. So the first part "Not hiring junior engineers" is very clear. Whatever this blog post is, it's a message to companies that are making these hiring decisions. Then, the rest follows: "<that thing you're doing> won't work". It won't solve the problem you think you have. Now that I've got your perspective, it IS possible for me to force my brain to incorrectly parse the title in a way that produces word salad, so I guess I can get it. I had all the context I needed to easily grok it at first glance. The intended audience of the article (people who are deciding to hire fewer junior engineers) ALSO probably have that context. But it's not hard for me to believe that there are lots of people even on HN that didn't! Thanks for clarifying

▲ foldr 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It's not really a double negative as the negations are in different clauses. If you remove both negations, you get a completely different statement:

> Hiring junior engineers will solve the problem you think you have.

▲ 1970-01-01 2 days ago | parent [-]

Clause change doesn't rescue the logic. If anything it makes it harder to process.

     Refusing to hire junior engineers won't fix your actual problem.

Fixed. I would click that.

	▲	foldr a day ago \| parent [-]
		> Clause change doesn't rescue the logic I don’t understand what you mean here. > Fixed Your edit is the same in terms of the negatives (though refusing to do something isn’t really the same as just not doing it). But you’ve changed what it says by referring to “your actual problem” instead of “the problem you think you have”.

▲ forgetfreeman 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]