u/kyan100

I recently saw a manager reject a candidate we were interviewing because his experience didn't exactly match the specific sub domain.

But I found myself disagreeing with the philosophy behind the rejection. My instinct is that if someone has strong C++ skills and has worked on reasonably complex systems, you should at least ask: "Can this person learn the domain?" rather than requiring an almost exact match.

This made me wonder whether this is a particular problem with systems programming in C/C++.

The ecosystem seems incredibly fragmented:

• Embedded
• Linux kernel/drivers
• Graphics
• Multimedia/codecs
• Databases/storage
• Networking
• Telecom
• Game engines
• Server/backend infrastructure
• Qt/GUI
• Compilers
• etc.

Someone can have spent 8 years writing sophisticated C++ in one of these areas and still be considered a poor candidate for another area because they don't have the specific domain experience.

Compare that with web development, where the skill boundaries seem somewhat easier to communicate: "React developer", "Angular developer", "Node.js backend developer", etc. There are obviously specializations there too, but the fragmentation doesn't feel as extreme.

I personally have the philosophy that if someone knows C++ well, understands systems programming concepts, debugging, memory, concurrency, Linux, etc., they should be given some credit for being able to move between domains. The domain-specific knowledge can be learned.

I have faced this exact issues with companies too. They reject you because haven't worked specifically on what they do. This becomes a serious issues when it's already hard to get into C++ jobs. Has anyone faced similar issues? What exactly is the solution for this?

I saw this post recently on this sub: https://www.reddit.com/r/Dravidiology/comments/1dk36vo/there_is_no_such_thing_as_an_oldest_language/

I have a different philosophical view and would like to share it. I think the post makes a valuable point about how languages evolve, but it also makes a philosophical leap that it never defends.

The post argues that because languages are constantly changing, they cannot meaningfully have an age. I don't think that conclusion follows. It implicitly assumes one particular theory of identity as if it were the only reasonable one. But whether something that changes remains "the same thing" is one of the oldest debates in philosophy, and there is no settled scientific or philosophical consensus. Read about synchronic vs diachronic identity.

A good analogy is the the word "Earth". The Earth today is radically different from the Earth a million years ago. Continents have shifted, species have gone extinct, climates have changed, and even the atoms making up the planet are constantly being recycled through geological processes. Yet nobody argues that because the Earth changes continuously, we cannot say that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

The word "Earth" already accommodates continuous change. Its identity is understood diachronically as something that persists through change not as a perfectly static object. Same applies to languages. Saying that "there is no such thing as an oldest language because languages change" is not a logical consequence of the premise. It only follows if one already assumes a synchronic theory of identity. That assumption is philosophically debated not scientifically established.

I agree with the post that simplistic claims like "Tamil is the oldest language" need qualification. But I don't agree that the concept of a language having an age is meaningless. That post's conclusion rests on a philosophical assumption about identity and is far from universally accepted, It is still an ongoing debate.

Looking for quality resources to learn more about topics like Dravidian history, Indus valley civilizations etc.

Would appreciate recommendations for YouTube channels, Podcasts, Blogs.

Where is the evidence for the claim that most Indian men won't get married without arranged marriage?

I keep seeing a lot of people saying things like “the majority of Indian men wouldn’t get married if not for arranged marriage.”

I rarely see any actual data for this bizzare claim. It just gets repeated as if it’s an established fact.

Anyone familiar with arranged marriage dynamics knows women reject plenty of prospects too, so the idea that men are simply being handed marriages doesn’t really reflect reality.

What bothers me is that these kinds of blanket statements about Indian men would probably be called out immediately if they were made about other groups. It feels more like racist stereotyping than a serious discussion. These kind of things really shows you their true color. So much for them being empathetic and progressive.

P.S. I’m not denying forced marriages exist or that some people have been pressured into marriage. Those cases are real and should be acknowledged. I just don’t think it’s accurate to present that as the norm.

A thing I keep noticing whenever racist mocking of India gets called out is the number of brown sepoys rushing in to defend it by saying things like:

“They’re just showing the truth.”
“If we don’t change, people will keep mocking us.”

I think this completely misses the point. Yes, racists often take real examples poverty, poor sanitation, overcrowding, etc. My question is what exactly is the practical solution people expect here? India still has 200–300 million people living in extreme or near extreme poverty. You cannot magically lift hundreds of millions of people into middle class living standards overnight. Economic development is a slow historical process. Even with strong growth, large countries improve gradually over decades not in a few years. There is no magic solution here.

Economic growth is already happening at a decent pace by historical standards. Infrastructure, literacy, sanitation, and income levels have improved significantly compared to previous generations. But expecting India to suddenly become a developed country is detached from economic reality.

Sepoys completely ignore the progress being made and refuse to accept the reality that economic growth takes time. Whether you like it or hate it growth is only going to happen gradually. So no matter how much you "show truth" or mock poverty it ain't gonna go away any sooner.