i just made up my own yaml format so i could easily create different versions of my resume for different job apps (generated through a static site generator, jekyll, in my case). i'm tempted to submit the yaml version rather than the visual version to make it easier for the machines to pass me on to the humans in the instances where i have to apply electronically. it has a bunch of points i comment out for a given job app to fit the compact visual format, but the machines can take all of it into account without issue, raising the potential hit rate.

You see a "standard CV" as an oppression tool. I see it as a tool to give control over their data, back to the users.

Now you have to upload the same data to LinkedIn, Angels.co, Hired, and hundreds of other services. With an open standard, you could update your data just once.

We are not robots, we are humans who work to live, and we shouldn't have to build our CV every time we look for that work.

Good company filter if you ask me.

> since its an acronym you should always format it as MAC

That's the American convention, but it can vary elsewhere. If you look at BBC articles, you'll find that initialisms (like HIV) will be capitalized, but acronyms (like Aids) will only have an initial capital letter. Since "Mac" will be pronounced rather than saying "M-A-C", the style in a lot of the world would be to only capitalize the "M".

Wikipedia's English language style guide specifically notes that it doesn't follow the convention of distinguishing between acronyms and initialisms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capi.... There's more information in the article about acronyms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym#Case

"Some publications choose to capitalize only the first letter of acronyms, reserving all-caps styling for initialisms, writing the pronounced acronyms "Nato" and "Aids" in mixed case, but the initialisms "USA" and "FBI" in all caps."

That already stands for message authentication code and media access control.

Let me give you a couple of use cases where a standard CV would be beneficial to workers.

1. You want to apply to one position but you only have your data on LinkedIn. If you wanna export it, you only have PDF as an option. You can't adapt or update it. 2. Even if you can adapt or update it, if the company or service where you want to apply doesn't support a standard format, you will have to re-enter the data, one by one.

Finally, all this friction discourages some candidates to apply to some positions.

exactly

The go team had the entire power of Google to subtly rebuild their search engine to not suck for this one stupid naming choice. I remember the earliest days after the language’s name was announced… it was nearly impossible to search for anything to do with it. It took months for anything to get better. The early conventions of calling it “go-lang” or “golang” stem from these days when it was just utterly impossible… and then Google realising they were affecting their recruitment pipeline (which Go was explicitly designed to help) stepped in to help fix the search discoverability so it wasn’t impossible to learn about this new language that people outside of Google should learn so Google didn’t have to teach its recruits the language designed for them.

In case the tone comes across harsh, I was trying to hold back just how I really feel. I can read and write in Go, but I hate the entire language and it’s ecosystem. It’s obvious to me that it was designed to be a better Java for Googlers at Google living in a monorepo world… the only positives I have to say about it are that talented people have somehow managed to write excellent and useful tools and software using it, but I really can’t like a language that makes me feel like I’m programming with the accidental child of BASIC and Java. However this isn’t a thread about Go, I just wish the poor choice of name had doomed it to obscurity and a quick death.

Who was using "Go" before Go?

Respectfully: I think this is the case if you yourself have commodity skills and don't know how to network. For folks who find themselves in this spot, the advice I've always given folks I mentor is to learn to do the networking thing and maybe pick up some stuff that's a little bit outside the norm but can be leveraged for multiplier effects in the job. (They exist! And they're usually pretty fun.)

Speaking for myself, I've never gotten a job through a process either initiated by a cold email from a recruiter or from filtering through an automatic process on the HR side of things, and I have a boatload of experience and I like to say I'm pretty good at The Technical Thing. I get jobs from talking to people, and I help folks get jobs (at Mux, hi, we're hiring!) through talking to people. I got an email yesterday from a new hire who came onboard because he saw a Who's Hiring post on HN, shot me an email, and I connected him with our recruiters 'cause he sounded like he'd be a good fit. No robots involved, except the SMTP ones. This happens pretty regularly and a lot of the candidates might be ones who'd look like a bad fit for a keyword filter.

There are jobs and there are people fit for jobs where keyword matching is a thing. There's also a monstrously large chunk of the industry where neither the job nor the ideal candidate can be expressed as such. So look at that, and then be that. And if you're finding walls, find the right person to talk to to help you get around those walls, because at places you want to be, people want more good folks to be there.

I agree with you that the phrase 'human resource' evokes feelings of commodification. The difference here, in my mind, is that the author of this format is asking people to commodify themselves.