Don't beg the question in your resume. I don't want coy points to ask about, I want details so I can make sure that I can actually have an engaging conversation about something, especially so that I can figure out how it might relate to work I'm doing here. It's astonishing to me that you can't grasp that a resume is a form of communication, and that therefore you might want to, I dunno, communicate in it.
> and everyone says to list accomplishments that benefitted the company instead of responsibilities, which this is a perfect example of.
It's not perfect, it's nearly worthless. A perfect example would have at the very least some hint of the business value and the nature of the problem at hand.
> The way I instinctively read and understand a document by actually reading it and caring about the content first is just too mismatched from the average neurotypical's way of looking at the world for me to empathize.
This is pretty patronizing. I'm actually suggesting that the content of the resume you provided is itself lacking. The issue is not that "oh no the neurotypicals don't want to read my resume", the issue is that this resume's content has room to improve, but you think that can't possibly be the case. Yeah, you're lacking empathy (or at the very least pretty defensive), but it's because we WANT content, not because we're looking for surface-level stuff. In fact most of the feedback has actually been that this resume is TOO surface-level (list of skills? don't care, vague bullet points? don't care), and you're defending the superficiality of content, which is incoherent alongside the claim that people don't care about the substance.
"Saved over 30 hours of manual work, where the worker had to find a PDF, Excel sheet row contents, and information from one other data source, combine them into a formatted email with this information following certain conditions, and look up the right email to send it to. This was done with Python and the gmail api, <whatever the pdf library was, I forget>, and manual string parsing, building hashmaps of the information and sending the emails out once every 10 seconds to honor the rate limiting. Parsing failures or any other exception was logged for manual review."
All that extra detail seems trivial to me and covered well enough by the gist provided. Is this version really that much better for these details? Is it even enough detail for you yet? It feels like too much detail to me.
It was something about tax ID's and temporary merchant licenses for the state of Maryland.
I think you're just being intellectually dishonest if you can't imagine some compromise between what you started with and what you have here, given the feedback you've received.
That's the actual definition of bad faith discussion. True to form, then :)
Edit: An actual dramatic improvement is trivial to pull from your bait example, by the way:
"Automated a manual process for collating tax ID and temporary merchant licenses for the state of Maryland, honoring rate limiting and supporting auditing of failures. Used Python and Gmail API".
Obviously there is some precision loss in my writing because I didn't work on the project and because your description of "something about tax ID's" was ambiguous to begin with.
Could even add "saving 30 hours a week/day/whatever".
> and everyone says to list accomplishments that benefitted the company instead of responsibilities, which this is a perfect example of.
It's not perfect, it's nearly worthless. A perfect example would have at the very least some hint of the business value and the nature of the problem at hand.
> The way I instinctively read and understand a document by actually reading it and caring about the content first is just too mismatched from the average neurotypical's way of looking at the world for me to empathize.
This is pretty patronizing. I'm actually suggesting that the content of the resume you provided is itself lacking. The issue is not that "oh no the neurotypicals don't want to read my resume", the issue is that this resume's content has room to improve, but you think that can't possibly be the case. Yeah, you're lacking empathy (or at the very least pretty defensive), but it's because we WANT content, not because we're looking for surface-level stuff. In fact most of the feedback has actually been that this resume is TOO surface-level (list of skills? don't care, vague bullet points? don't care), and you're defending the superficiality of content, which is incoherent alongside the claim that people don't care about the substance.