I spent a good week working on my application, then I was rejected with an automated email from the portal. The human being I had been emailing with while applying didn't respond to an email asking for feedback. The day after the automated rejection email, I received another email from the portal asking "how has your experience been as an applicant?" I did eventually figure out how to request my intelligence assessment results from the support email address for the testing system and that was clearly why I was rejected. It was actually a bit of a relief to see the results because I had assumed that I scored low on one or two of the assessment types, which I was worried I might have trouble with. It turns out that the test found that I'm below average intelligence in all areas measured. I have hired people before and, I understand, it's hard. I get that companies have to come up with some hiring process and follow it. But, Canonical's process is rude. After asking the candidate to make a significant effort the polite thing is for a human being to tell the candidate they are no longer being considered. An automated email is impolite. The intelligence assessment is also a bit of a weird requirement. I didn't do well on it so, naturally, I'm a bit skeptical. But the instructions for the tests specify that "both speed and accuracy are equally important". Are people who answer questions more quickly better software engineers? Code works well because it it is well tested not because highly accurate human beings scan through it quickly, spotting all the bugs.