Do you honestly believe that those who worked on this don't know about the difference between reliability and validity?
Your comment is mind-bogglingly ignorant, espousing blind skepticism that sounds great but doesn’t have any sound reasoning behind it. You very obviously know nothing about the topic at hand yet still feel qualified to declare it worthless.
It is actually standard on German resumés. Not in the sense that everyone does it, but a self-assessment is often recommended.
I think it’s especially useful in showing off relative skills. It doesn’t make sense to compare across categories (or – even crazier – people), it does make sense to compare within categories. It doesn’t have to be super-precise, but it makes it easy to see where someone sees their core-competency and with what they at least played around with (and are likely to learn quickly). How good they are actually at their core-competency has to be determined in the interview process (if there is no other objective way to do it) but that is going to be the case either way. The self-assessment is just a little hint for whoever reads your resumé to help them judge your skills better.
Sometimes it’s probably better to be more descriptive, especially when it comes to foreign language skills, but it always also depends on the job. The way I do it, the self-assessment also changes depending on the job. When I put myself down as “very good” with SPSS then I’m only talking about SPSS-knowledge that is actually important for the job I’m applying to. It doesn’t mean that I know every feature of SPSS, it does mean that I know every feature that is relevant for the job.
(It’s probably always best if you can substantiate your subjective assessment with objective facts. I put myself down as “very good” in my English-language skills and I have the A in the Cambridge Certificate in Advanced English to prove it.)
I don’t really understand all the incomprehension at the scales. Putting yourself down at five points obviously doesn’t mean that you know everything or there is no more to learn. That would be non-sensical. Don’t even try to compare that self-assessment to other people, if you do, pick a random group of people with similar qualifications. Someone who puts themselves down at five points would see themselves as quite some ways above average in that group.
The lunar lander did it that way – on the Moon. (There are other examples but that’s probably the most famous one and there were actual people in it.)
But no, no actual returning spaceship has landed on Earth that way. They all either did an atmospheric re-entry (capsules) or glided back (Space Shuttle). Soyuz uses rockets to slow itself down shortly before it lands, but that’s not controlled, more to slow the fall in the last second.
Empirical results are ambiguous, mostly pointing in the direction that there is no difference in readability between serif and sans serif fonts – and those are often very old studies, done on very old hardware with very low resolutions.
As should be obvious from the Website, iA are also huge fans of and advocates for large font sizes, in this case their body text is over 20 pixels in size. Any aesthetic issues (smushed and blurry serifs) are not really a problem at that size. 10 pixel Times might look ugly (even though it might be as readable as 10 pixel Arial) – its details a blurry mess – but if there are more pixels to work with that’s no problem – especially not with that many more pixels.
Looking at the font, it’s also obvious that it’s supposed to work at the still relatively common low resolutions of, say, laptop screens. Its shapes are relatively simple, the amount of detail is relatively low. It’s only a small step up from the very simple (and also gorgeous) Georgia.
Because of the aforementioned aesthetic problems with serif fonts (blurry serifs at small sizes on low resolution displays) not using a serif font might be a good rule of thumb if you are clueless about typography, but it doesn’t make any sense to adhere to that if you actually know your way around.
And even if you are clueless there is nothing wrong with using something simple and very optimized (also beautiful) like Georgia.
Your comment is mind-bogglingly ignorant, espousing blind skepticism that sounds great but doesn’t have any sound reasoning behind it. You very obviously know nothing about the topic at hand yet still feel qualified to declare it worthless.