u/CycleWeak9929

I uploaded my perfectly formatted PDF. The ATS parsed it. It has all the information. And then the very next page asks me to type my work history manually. Start date. End date. Job title. Responsibilities. One job at a time. For every single role. And if you try to paste it, it reformats weird. This happened to me four times today on four different applications. I genuinely want to know who designs these systems and whether they have ever in their entire life actually applied for a job

Genuine question and not asking to be defensive about it just curious. Like does an application coming through a tool like this look any different on the ats side than one submitted manually. I know the resume gets tailored and submitted but does the application metadata give anything away. Has anyone gotten feedback from a recruiter or hiring manager about this either way?

I teach at a community college and I've been trying to figure out a responsible way to screen for AI generated content.

Ran the same student submission through four different tools and got 12% on one, 67% on another, likely human on a third and high probability AI on the fourth. If I'm going to have a conversation with a student about academic integrity based on one of these tools i need to actually trust what it's telling me. Right now I don't trust any of them.

Has anyone found an AI detector that's at least consistent even if it's not perfect? I'm not looking for a silver bullet just something I can rely on enough to use as a first pass.

I know this sub is usually skeptical about using a dummy ticket, but i just wanted to share that i actually got my visa approved using one.

here is the important info:

first, a flight reservation for visa is completely legal. the embassy checklist usually asks for a "reservation" or "itinerary," not a paid-in-full ticket. they actually advise against buying non-refundable flights before approval.

second, it's helpful to know the difference between products. a standard flight reservation is a professional flight itinerary that outlines your travel plan, it’s a solid, professional document. then there’s the verifiable flight reservation, which comes with a live pnr that you can see in the airline's system.

it’s a great way to show proof of onward travel or provide a flight reservation without payment of the full $1k+ fare. just make sure you're getting a professional document from a reputable source.

happy to help if you guys have any questions.

I'm in my early 20s and I'm scared shitless of spiders when I see medium or huge ones. I know most of them are harmless, but the moment I see one my brain immediately goes into panic mode. Doesn’t matter if it’s tiny or huge I’m either leaving the room or staring at it like it’s planning my death.

What’s weird is I can look at pictures/videos of spiders just fine sometimes and honestly I think they are beautiful creatures, but seeing one in real life instantly activates survival instincts. Though I won't kill them since that kind of goes against my morals.

My fear for spiders has been there since I was a kid and it doesn't seem to fade away. And I kind of want to get over it slowly. Has anyone got any ideas to achieve that?

New role, new company, week two. 1:1 with my manager and she asked 'so what are you thinking for your 30-60-90?'i have been in the workforce for seven years. I know what a 30-60-90 plan is. I've helped design them for people I've managed. I somehow assumed this company didn't do them formally and I was just going to figure things out as I went. I said something about wanting to get to know the team and understand the current priorities before putting together a plan. she said 'sure, can you send it by end of next week' and moved on.i have no idea what to put in it. I don't know the team or the priorities yet which is the whole problem. I'm also now stressed that this expectation existed at the start of my tenure and i clearly hadn't prepared for it.how do you build a 30-60-90 in week two of a role you're still learning.

Okay so context I've been slowly getting into fragrances over the last year or so. Started with the usual suspects, Dior Sauvage, Acqua di Gio, you know how it goes. I'm trying to explore a bit more but the sourcing situation in India is genuinely confusing me.

My city has maybe two or three stores that sell anything beyond the basics and even those are mostly just Davidoff, CK, and whatever Hugo Boss flanker came out last year. Sephora is not an option for me unless I'm in Bangalore or Mumbai.

Tried buying from a random seller online once and I'm still not 100% sure what I received was real. Smelled slightly off from the sample I'd tried at the airport. Never again.

So what's the actual move here for people who want to explore properly without

1. Getting scammed with fake product

2. Paying 40% more than the MRP for the privilege of buying from a "trusted" source

3. Waiting 3 weeks for international shipping

Has anyone had consistently good experiences with a particular platform or seller? Genuinely asking, not looking for dupe recommendations, want the real stuff.

Diagnosed at 29, currently 34. work in operations at a tech company. everything below is what I've arrived at after 5 years of trial and error. none of it is ADHD-specific by design but all of it addresses specific ADHD failure modes for me.

The problems I'm solving for: losing track of tasks, forgetting things said in meetings, avoiding tasks that require writing, context switching destroying my focus, and the general feeling of always being behind.

8. Forest app (5/10) you plant a fake tree and it dies if you leave the app. somehow the guilt of killing a digital tree keeps me off my phone for 25 minutes. it's dumb. it works on bad days. I'd survive without it.

9. Structured (7/10) time blocking app. I put my day into blocks so I know what I'm supposed to be doing right now. without this I drift until something becomes urgent and then panic. the visual timeline is what makes it work for me over a regular to-do list.

10. Todoist (7/10) task capture. the only reason this ranks is the speed of adding tasks. "email report to jessica by friday at 3pm" and it creates the task with a due date. if adding a task took more than 5 seconds I wouldn't do it. I've tested this hypothesis with other apps. confirmed.

11. Body doubling / Focusmate (8/10) I book video sessions with strangers and we both work for 50 minutes. I don't understand why this works but it does. something about another human being present makes my brain agree to do the boring task. 3-4 sessions a week for stuff I know I'll avoid otherwise.

Startup networking event. Got introduced to someone who turned out to be an active angel investor. Completely unplanned.

He asked what we were building and seemed genuinely interested. I started pitching. It was going okay, then he asked, “What’s your growth looking like month over month?” and I gave a number that was wrong by about 30%. Not even close to our actual number. The actual number is better. I look at it every day.

I think the spontaneity of it got me. I didn’t have my deck, didn’t have my phone with the dashboard open, and didn’t have the context of being in a pitch meeting. I was just at a party holding a drink, and my brain grabbed the wrong number.

He gave me his card and said to follow up, but I’ve been thinking about whether I just tanked our first impression with someone who could write a check.

How do you stay sharp on your own metrics when pitching comes out of nowhere?

I am actually losing my mind. I just got a rejection email for a Junior market research role and the feedback was literally "we decided to go with someone with more experience."

Dude... it was an ENTRY LEVEL role. The pay barely above the minimum wage. Who is this more experienced person taking these roles?? Are the people having 3 to 4 years of experience that desperate that they are taking entry level jobs or the company is just lying to us?

i’ve got the degree, i did the unpaid internships, but that’s just not enough.

Is anyone actually got hired, or we are all just vibing in unemployment together.

Here’s my problem. I've been running outbound sequences through an AI SDR tool for about three months now and I kept noticing something that was wrecking reply rates. The AI would reference prior events that happened but the wrong amount of time, or get the details slightly wrong. Nothing catastrophically wrong, jus wrong enough, and confident about it. And obviously this leaves a bad impression on the prospects. I started digging into why this was happening and landed on something obvious in hindsight: the prompts I was using gave the model no permission to express doubt. I was asking it to ""write a personalized opening line referencing [PROSPECT_COMPANY]'s growth stage"" and it would just... do it. Fill the gap. Invent a posture. So I started testing a different framing, instead of prompting for output, I started prompting for honesty first. The pattern that worked best looked roughly like this:

"You have the following data about this prospect: [DATA]. If any of this data is missing, outdated, or ambiguous, do not assume or infer. Instead, flag it with [UNCERTAIN] and write a fallback line that does not depend on that information being accurate."

First time I ran this I half expected the model to ignore it. But it started tagging chunks of the context it wasn't confident about and defaulting to lines that were vaguer but true. eg "I noticed you're in the [INDUSTRY] space" It immediately made me more hopeful that I could trust it not to lie to prospects. The reply rates didn't go through the roof or anything, but the responses I did get didn't have questions like ""where did you get that from?"" which used to happen quite a bit. The other thing that helped enormously was separating the research step from the writing step. Instead of one prompt doing both, I'd have a first prompt evaluate the quality of the data: ""Rate the confidence of each field below from 1-3. Flag anything you'd need to verify before making a specific claim."" Then pass that output into the writing prompt with instructions to only reference high-confidence fields. This does add more steps but the outputs were noticeably less likely to fabricate. At the moment I’m still experimenting with variations on this. I’m keen to learn more so if anyone here has a different prompting workflow that got better results please share if you don't mind.

The email arrived Tuesday morning. Subject line: Your application to [company] has been reviewed.

Hello, I have had a chance to review your application for our Senior Data Engineer role, and I am excited about your background. I would love to schedule a call to discuss further.

I have never applied to this company. I checked my records. I check these things carefully because I track every application in a spreadsheet. This company is not in it.

I checked LinkedIn no apply button pressed, no message thread, nothing.

I went to their careers page. The Senior Data Engineer role exists. It is a role I am genuinely qualified for and would actually consider.

So now I have a decision. I can reply and say I did not apply but I am interested. I can ask how she found my application. I can just play along and treat it as a cold reach-out dressed in application language. Or I can ignore it.

I am genuinely curious how this happened and also genuinely considering the role.

I have been building my channel for about eighteen months. I got connected with a creator with about ten times my audience who wanted to discuss a potential collab. I hopped on the call, and they were just… ready. They had a whole doc with collab concepts, audience overlap data, monetization angles. All structured.

I had some ideas in my head. No doc. No structure. Nothing written down.

I spent most of the call reacting to their ideas instead of bringing my own. I said “yeah, that could work” a lot. When they asked what I thought would resonate with my audience, I gave a vague answer because I was rattled by how underprepared I looked by comparison.

They said “let’s stay in touch,” which in collab language probably means they’re going to find someone who came to the table ready.

I know my audience well. I had actual ideas. I just couldn’t access them once the power dynamic made me feel like the smaller party in the room.

How do you hold your own when you feel outmatched?

I use chatgpt at work every day. marketing at a tech company. About a year in. The first 6 months were honestly mid. I kept reading posts about amazing outputs and mine were consistently generic.

I finally figured out what was going on when I compared my prompts to the ones in those success posts. The difference wasn't some magic system prompt or secret technique. The good prompts just had way more information in them. Specific context about the situation, constraints, audience, tone preferences, examples of what they didn't want.

My prompts looked like texts to a friend. "write me a blog intro about data security." ok that's technically a prompt but it gives chatgpt almost nothing to work with. of course the output is generic.

When I started including stuff like "this is for IT directors at mid-market companies who are evaluating SOC 2 compliance for the first time. the tone should be practical not alarmist. Avoid jargon like 'attack surface' because this audience isn't security-native. the blog is part of a series where the previous post covered basic compliance frameworks" the output jumped from a 4/10 to an 8/10 easily.

The annoying part is writing prompts that detailed is tedious when you're typing. I've started talking through what I want out loud for longer prompts. I use an AI voice dictation tool called Willow Voice and just explain the task like I'm briefing a coworker. the spoken version naturally includes all the background context I'd skip when typing because talking is just faster and I don't self-censor as much. it formalizes my thinking into something chatgpt can actually use.

But honestly the core lesson has nothing to do with how you input the prompt. it's that chatgpt mirrors your effort. lazy input gets lazy output. detailed input gets detailed output. most "chatgpt sucks" complaints I see are really "I gave chatgpt nothing and it gave me nothing back."

What was the moment your chatgpt usage clicked? I'm curious what the turning point was for other people.

We’re planning our first family trip to London next spring and I’m trying to find that sweet spot between a beautiful luxury hotel and something that genuinely works with children. We’re looking to stay for five nights with spend around GBP 1,500 a night.

My husband and I love the idea of a proper luxury family break in London, but so many of the hotels I’m looking at feel like they’re designed for couples or business travellers rather than families. Gorgeous lobbies, yes… but I’m not sure how practical they are once you add two kids into the mix.

Ideally I’m looking for a luxury family hotel in London that has things like:

family suites or easy interconnecting rooms

a central location for sightseeing (so we’re not constantly on the Tube)

a few things at the hotel itself that make downtime easier with kids

The dream is somewhere where the adults still get that luxury hotel experience, but the kids don’t feel like they’re tiptoeing around a very serious lobby.

For those who’ve travelled with children, what would you say are the best family-friendly hotels in London that still feel special?

Would love to hear any favourites before I start booking.