Job Posting Requires '10 Years Experience' with Technology Invented 3 Years Ago

There's a special kind of job posting that circulates on Twitter every few months, gets thousands of quote-tweets from developers roasting it, and somehow still makes recruiters wonder why they can't find qualified candidates. It's the posting that requires 10+ years of experience with a framework that's existed for 3 years. And yes, it happened again.

The Job Posting That Broke the Internet (Again)

This latest gem comes from a mid-sized fintech company in Austin—we'll keep them anonymous because they've suffered enough—recruiting for a Senior Full Stack Developer. The posting, which was live on their careers page and LinkedIn for approximately 36 hours before the internet found it, included this requirement:

"Required: 10+ years of production experience with Next.js, React Server Components, and Edge Runtime deployment."

For the non-technical readers: Next.js is a React framework. React Server Components became production-ready in 2023. The Edge Runtime deployment pattern this posting referenced became mainstream in 2024. We are currently in November 2025.

The maximum amount of production experience anyone could have with React Server Components is approximately 24-30 months. Even the people who built React Server Components at Meta don't have 10 years of experience with them, because they didn't exist 10 years ago.

How This Happens (Repeatedly)

You'd think this would be a rare mistake. It's not. This specific type of requirement appears with stunning regularity across the tech industry, and the pattern is always the same:

1. Hiring manager wants a senior developer with deep expertise
2. Hiring manager looks at the tech stack the team currently uses
3. Hiring manager decides that "senior" must mean "10+ years of experience"
4. Hiring manager lists every technology in the current stack with the "10+ years" requirement
5. Hiring manager hands requirements to recruiter
6. Recruiter, who doesn't know when various technologies were invented, posts it verbatim
7. The internet discovers it and roasts everyone involved

According to recruiters who shared similar stories anonymously, the fundamental problem is that hiring managers often don't know (or don't care to check) when technologies were created. They just know they want "experienced" people, and they equate years of experience with expertise.

The Creator's Response (The Best Part)

What makes these stories legendary is when the actual creator of the technology responds to the job posting. It's happened multiple times:

When a job posting required "7+ years of experience with Kubernetes" in 2017 (when Kubernetes was 3 years old), one of the Kubernetes creators quote-tweeted it: "I only have 3 years of Kubernetes experience. Guess I'm not qualified to work on the thing I helped build."

When FastAPI (created in 2018) job postings started requiring "5+ years of experience" in 2021, the creator Sebastián Ramírez quote-tweeted multiple postings: "I created FastAPI and I don't have 5 years of experience with it. This requirement is impossible."

The absolute peak was when a job posting required "15+ years of experience with Swift" in 2020. Swift was released by Apple in 2014. Chris Lattner, who created Swift, responded: "I have 6 years of Swift experience (because I invented it 6 years ago). I don't qualify for this role."

For this Next.js posting specifically, Lee Robinson (VP of Product at Vercel, the company behind Next.js) quote-tweeted it: "Next.js was released in 2016, React Server Components became stable in 2023. Even I don't have 10 years of RSC experience. Good luck with your search!"

The Candidate Reactions Are Gold

The Twitter/X thread that resulted from this posting produced some absolute gems from developers:

"I have 10 years of experience with Next.js, but only in dog years."

"I have 10 years of FUTURE experience. Hire me and I'll work backwards through time."

"My resume is quantum. I simultaneously have both 0 and 10 years of experience until you observe it during the interview."

"I lied on my resume and claimed 10 years of React Server Components. They hired me. I start Monday. Time is a construct."

"I've been using React Server Components since 2015. In a parallel universe. Does that count?"

"The job market is so bad I'm tempted to actually apply and when they ask about my 10 years of experience, just stare at them silently until they realize their mistake."

One developer created a fake resume for a time traveler from 2035 with genuine 10+ years of RSC experience, listing accomplishments like "Maintained production React Server Components through the Great Framework Wars of 2029" and "Survived the Edge Runtime collapse of 2032." It got 40,000 likes.

The Company's Response (Damage Control 101)

Once the posting went viral and the roasting began, the company had a few options:

1. Quietly delete the posting and pretend it never happened
2. Acknowledge the error and make a self-deprecating joke
3. Double down and insist the requirement was correct
4. Blame the recruiter

They chose option 2, which was the right call. Their careers page Twitter account posted:

"We messed up. Turns out you can't require 10 years of experience with technology that's existed for 2 years. Math is hard. We've updated the posting to require 2+ years of Next.js and production React experience. Also hiring a new calculator. (Just kidding, we love our team.)"

This response actually worked pretty well. The thread got positive reactions, several developers said they'd apply specifically because the company handled the mistake well, and the whole thing turned into net-positive employer brand exposure.

Internal Slack messages (leaked by employees, naturally) showed the chaos this created:

Hiring Manager: "Why is our job posting all over Twitter?"

Recruiter: "Because you asked for 10 years of experience with a 2-year-old framework."

Hiring Manager: "I just copied the requirements from the tech lead's list."

Tech Lead: "I just listed what we use. I didn't put the years requirement on it."

Hiring Manager: "I put '10+ years' on everything because I want senior people."

Recruiter: "That's... not how time works."

HR Director: "Can everyone stop posting in public Slack channels about this? Some of these are being screenshotted."

Anonymous Employee: "Too late, already on Reddit."

Why This Keeps Happening

The fundamental issue isn't stupidity—it's a disconnect between hiring managers who don't track technology timelines and recruiters who don't have technical expertise to catch obvious errors.

Hiring managers in many companies treat years of experience as a universal proxy for skill level. Junior = 0-2 years. Mid = 2-5 years. Senior = 5-10 years. Staff/Principal = 10+ years. This heuristic works fine for general experience but falls apart when applied to specific technologies with known creation dates.

Recruiters, especially at smaller companies without dedicated technical recruiters, often lack the domain knowledge to question technical requirements. When a hiring manager says "10+ years with Next.js," the recruiter doesn't know whether that's reasonable or ridiculous.

The ATS systems and job posting templates encourage this problem. Many companies have standard templates with dropdowns for years of experience (0-2, 2-5, 5-10, 10+) that get applied to every skill listed, regardless of whether it makes sense.

Nobody in the approval chain catches it. The hiring manager writes it, the recruiter posts it, HR approves it, and it goes live without anyone running the basic sanity check of "has this technology existed long enough for this requirement to be possible?"

The Real Damage Beyond Mockery

Yes, it's funny when these postings go viral and get roasted. But they create real problems:

Qualified candidates don't apply. Developers who actually have 2-3 years of production experience with the technology—which makes them highly qualified—see the "10+ years" requirement and assume the company is clueless or the role is fake. They don't apply.

Unqualified candidates do apply. People who lie on resumes, claim impossible experience, or don't actually understand the technology will apply because they don't know the requirements are impossible. You filter out honest, qualified people and attract resume fraudsters.

Your employer brand takes a hit. Even when you handle the viral moment well, it still signals to developers that your hiring process is sloppy, your hiring managers don't know what they're doing, and your recruiters don't catch obvious errors. That's not attractive.

It wastes everyone's time. Developers spend hours crafting applications trying to explain their "equivalent experience" or "accelerated learning." Recruiters screen candidates against impossible criteria. Hiring managers interview people who don't actually meet the real (non-impossible) requirements.

It feeds the narrative that recruiting is broken. Every one of these viral postings reinforces developer cynicism about recruiting, job postings, and hiring processes in general. It makes the job harder for everyone.

How to Not Do This (A Simple Guide)

For hiring managers:

• Google the release date of every specific technology you list. It takes 30 seconds. If the framework launched in 2022, don't require 10 years of experience with it in 2025.
• Separate general experience from specific technology experience. "10+ years of software development experience with 2+ years production experience in Next.js" is reasonable. "10+ years of Next.js experience" is impossible.
• Work with your recruiter to validate requirements. If something seems wrong to them, listen. They talk to candidates all day and know what's realistic.

For recruiters:

• Question requirements that seem excessive. If a hiring manager wants 10+ years of experience with multiple specific frameworks, tools, and languages, run a quick Google search on creation dates.
• Push back on impossible requirements. It's better to have an uncomfortable conversation with the hiring manager before posting than a viral roasting after posting.
• Educate hiring managers on how requirements affect candidate pools. Show them data on how impossible requirements reduce application volume and quality.

For companies:

• Review job postings before they go live. Have someone with technical knowledge (a developer, a technical recruiter, a CTO) scan postings for obvious errors.
• Build feedback loops. When postings get zero qualified applicants, investigate whether the requirements are realistic.
• Train hiring managers on writing requirements. This isn't intuitive. Provide templates, examples, and education on how to translate "I want someone experienced" into realistic, achievable requirements.

The Philosophical Question

At what point does "10 years of experience" stop meaning actual chronological years and start meaning "really really good at this thing"?

Some hiring managers argue (usually defensively after their posting goes viral) that they don't literally mean 10 calendar years—they mean "expert-level proficiency equivalent to what someone with 10 years of experience would have."

Which is fine as a concept, but that's not what "10+ years of experience" means to candidates. When you write "10+ years required," candidates read that as a chronological requirement and filter themselves out if they don't meet it.

If you want to say "expert-level," say "expert-level." If you want specific skills, list specific skills. If you want demonstrated ability, ask for portfolio examples or technical assessments.

Don't use "years of experience" as a proxy for "good" because it backfires spectacularly when the thing you're measuring hasn't existed long enough.

The Ongoing Hall of Fame

This Next.js posting joins a long and distinguished list of impossible requirements that have gone viral:

• "7+ years of Kubernetes" (when Kubernetes was 3 years old)
• "5+ years of FastAPI" (when FastAPI was 2 years old)
• "15+ years of Swift" (when Swift was 6 years old)
• "10+ years of React Hooks" (when Hooks were 18 months old)
• "8+ years of TypeScript 4.x" (when TypeScript 4.x was 8 months old)

Each one generates the same cycle: viral roasting, company embarrassment, hasty correction, temporary industry reflection on impossible requirements, followed by the next company doing the exact same thing 6 months later.

It's like a meme that reincarnates in slightly different forms forever, teaching the same lesson that somehow never gets learned.

The Silver Lining

If there's any positive to these recurring disasters, it's that they create moments of solidarity in the developer community. Developers bond over shared frustration with recruiting absurdity. Companies occasionally learn and improve their processes. And we all get excellent Twitter content.

Plus, every viral impossible requirement posting serves as a teaching moment for recruiters and hiring managers who might otherwise make the same mistake.

Will it stop companies from posting impossible requirements? Absolutely not.

Will we keep roasting them when they do? Absolutely yes.

Will someone at a company right now be drafting a job posting that requires 15 years of experience with a framework released in 2024? Without question.

The cycle continues. Time is linear. Experience requirements apparently are not.

If you're a hiring manager reading this: please, for the love of all that is holy, Google the release date before you publish. The internet is watching. And we have screenshots.