alephnullz

This is a good point, although I suspect the so-called "victim" here wouldn't have trouble finding gainful employment elsewhere.

Basically we're a bunch of crybabies today.

Don't agree "profitable to do so." Where are your statistics to back up that claim?

These aren't arguments; they're hypotheses. "Pissing off" huh? Because a few jerkoffs Tweet they're upset doesn't mean most of America cares. That's the problem.

I'd also say we should absolutely use the results in that case. But that's not the hypothetical. I was asking whether to blacklist someone who might make future contributions to humanity based on an accusation is really a reasonable sacrifice.

That's also a valid question, albeit with a more radical example. But we shouldn't deal in absolutes. To equate someone exposing himself to another people in an inappropriate way to Nazi war crimes is a bit of a stretch, which raises the question "where do we draw the line"? There is no right answer to the question, I suppose.

Can we? It's not looking likely that Kevin Spacey may work again, despite his clear talents as an actor. I wouldn't call Spacey's work life-changing, but it does bring a level of satisfaction and happiness to a number of people. And yet we'll now be deprived of that satisfaction. I'm saying that horrible people can make meaningful, positive contributions, but in the current politically charged environment we seem to be acting before we consider that.

We are so quick to ostracize people these days, blacklist based on even an accusation or admission of prior guilt. Imagine a university that fired someone with the potential to become the next Feynman or Einstein because of an unfortunate sexual or racial comment. I'm not justifying the comment, but it's an interesting question.

Of course this is not a new idea. Think Wagner, for example, a notorious antisemite. Or consider a utilitarian view. It is to me somewhat alarming, though, the swiftness with which we pass judgment these days, and I think it's worth considering the impact.

Agreed regarding the "radio silence." This at least seems very unprofessional, especially if a company (as in this case) has indicated that you are "very much in the running."

I notice a lot of value judgments on here with respect to the original posting. In no way was it a comment on the job, frustration with the interview process itself, or a comment on my or the interviewer's proficiency. I was merely curious whether feedback is common.

I've had a reasonably long career and have been blessed (and perhaps lucky) to have gotten almost every job I've interviewed for, so I wasn't quite sure whether feedback is the norm or not, as I haven't been in the position to assess that.

The summary, though, seems to be not to expect feedback, at least not post-interview, if you are not made an offer. This is understandable from a liability perspective. More professional companies will, after an interview, at least notify you (or your recruiter) that they have decided to pass on your candidacy. And finally, lack of feedback is not necessarily indicative of a poor, nor a great, interview. Any number of factors may have come into play, including, as far as one knows, say, that at the last minute the CTO decided to hire his cousin.