Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

danluu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 653 posts

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#271

Post by mrkurt »

jo327511 wrote: post #259
alskdfji wrote: post #232

This was the most depressing part to me: "Another person I know is in a similar situation because his group won’t talk to people who aren’t already employed." It's a long story, but both my wife and I have most recently been at places, in a small-medium city, that have had huge turnover in the last several years due to mismanagement (her entire unit, except for her, left twice while she was working with them; we've l…

Wait, so let me get this right: 1) Your wife gave up her career to take care of the kid 2) Now she's found a job and is asking you to do the same 3) Additionally, you consider your job a clusterfuck with incompetent management Seems like a clear decision

You missed a few numbers: 4) may not be able to get another job after an extended gap 5) would have to move out of town

Those types of choices aren't usually clear.

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#272

Post by mrkurt »

EpicEng wrote: post #253
nanodano wrote: post #207

When I hear "we only hire the best" it just sounds like generic crap an HR person added, not a big red flag that they are snobs. I don't think it really means anything. By definition, anyone hiring anyone wants to only hire the best. Nobody wants to hire only the mediocre. If I hear things like that I generally just ignore it. Anyway, the author makes all kinds of unfounded assumptions. Someone with .NET and Windows…

>By definition, anyone hiring anyone wants to only hire the best I agree with your overall sentiment, but this isn't true at all. The best cost money, and the best don't want to work on boring stuff. Most software is boring. A team of mediocre devs is more often than not just fine to do the job and it keeps cost down (and turnover likely lower).

Usually just append "... for the position" when you see "we only hire the best".

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#273

Post by koolba »

stefantheard wrote: post #202
koolba wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You have never worked with someone from Oracle. They do not try to hire remotely the best, they hire cheap. Anyone that can churn out barely functional code, use their customers to functional test it, and take often half a fiscal year to provide a bug fix for you. They have a huge services division and that's the same formula used by all the big players. It's a numbers game for billing and they shoot to make it wor…

I noticed you said "nearly nothing", what are some exceptions? I'm curious why anyone would start using Oracle now. The only reason I would see to use it is because you are reasonably dependent on it already and cannot migrate easily.

> I noticed you said "nearly nothing", what are some exceptions? I'm curious why anyone would start using Oracle now. The only reason I would see to use it is because you are reasonably dependent on it already and cannot migrate easily.

Ultra high end OLTP system leveraging Oracle RAC. It's a very specific use case that goes beyond basic replication where you require ACID compliance, HA, multi master (in this case via shared disks and distributed locks), all atop an MVCC database. The MVCC implementation of Oracle does not require a VACUUM style operation which is another plus for a 24/7 environment.

I know of a couple financial services companies that have this type of setup though I've yet to find one that (IMHO) really justifies it. In all cases they've got boatloads of money to throw at a problem and the guys in charge of making the tech decisions don't mind having one of those boats sail off to Larry Ellison.

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#274

Post by phoe-krk »

pasquinelli wrote: post #264
EpicEng wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>By definition, anyone hiring anyone wants to only hire the best I agree with your overall sentiment, but this isn't true at all. The best cost money, and the best don't want to work on boring stuff. Most software is boring. A team of mediocre devs is more often than not just fine to do the job and it keeps cost down (and turnover likely lower).

so mediocre is better than best sometimes?

It tends to get the job done cheaper and quicker instead of waiting for the "best" to get recruited, and then paying massive money to keep them at the company. Is that a suitable definition of "better"?

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#275

Post by beat »

So here's the thing... hiring at larger, growing companies often means weeding through a stack of a hundred resumes, for one or two or five roles. Most of those resumes need to go away. The interview process, for competent candidates, is going to cost you at bare minimum a half hour of one person's time for initial screening. A quality interview is going to take a couple of hours each for a few important people - managers and senior/lead tech staff, for engineering jobs. Considering pg's maximum about maker schedules, the hiring process is very disruptive for the productivity of some of your most valuable tech staff.

So you want to get rid of 19 resumes out of 20, without ever interviewing them. And for that, you need heuristics. And those heuristics are, in all likelihood, going to be biased and stupid in some ways.

For example, I will automatically reject any resume that has more than two typos. I consider it evidence of carelessness - I don't care if you can't spell, but I do care if you don't bother to run it past someone else who can for editing.

The danger is that a heuristic - any heuristic - for filtering out resumes will inevitably lead to missing some candidates who would excel in the role. Oh well. I'm not going to waste time interviewing every possible candidate, just hoping to catch that magic person. It's irresponsible.

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#276

Post by jackhack »

wenc wrote: post #230
koolba wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You have never worked with someone from Oracle. They do not try to hire remotely the best, they hire cheap. Anyone that can churn out barely functional code, use their customers to functional test it, and take often half a fiscal year to provide a bug fix for you. They have a huge services division and that's the same formula used by all the big players. It's a numbers game for billing and they shoot to make it wor…

> The database is incredible This is something I've heard over the years but I'm not sure if it is still holds true. (I work with Oracle databases daily). Oracle DBMSes are very robust, to be sure, and you can expect them to run forever. But in my mind other databases seems to have caught up and there really isn't a compelling reason to choose Oracle over other commercial databases anymore (also, Oracle pricing is a…

> Oracle's licensing prohibits any benchmarking

That tells me all I need to know.

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#277

Post by gerbilly »

nanodano wrote: post #207

When I hear "we only hire the best" it just sounds like generic crap an HR person added, not a big red flag that they are snobs. I don't think it really means anything. By definition, anyone hiring anyone wants to only hire the best. Nobody wants to hire only the mediocre. If I hear things like that I generally just ignore it. Anyway, the author makes all kinds of unfounded assumptions. Someone with .NET and Windows…

>By definition, anyone hiring anyone wants to only hire the best.

By definition anyone buying a car wants to only buy the best.

But then people buy way more Camry's than Ferraris so maybe there are other variables than what is 'best' at play? :-)

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#278

Post by donretag »

"who was tragically underemployed for years because of his low GPA in college"

Who puts their GPA on their resume, or even discusses it, 2-3 years out of school? I have never discussed GPA or anything about their academic experience to mid/senior level candidates, nor has anyone ever asked me.

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#279

Post by rb808 »

The comments about Microsoft tech stack are interesting. The best, most successful, most reliable most loved by users application I worked on was distributed C# SOA system windows with a relational database. However coming off that job I had trouble finding work. Now I work on a Scala/Java/Python with containers - we have so many problems - its difficult to use and maintain but suddenly I'm drowning in job offers.

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#280

Post by gooseus »

pasquinelli wrote: post #264
EpicEng wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>By definition, anyone hiring anyone wants to only hire the best I agree with your overall sentiment, but this isn't true at all. The best cost money, and the best don't want to work on boring stuff. Most software is boring. A team of mediocre devs is more often than not just fine to do the job and it keeps cost down (and turnover likely lower).

so mediocre is better than best sometimes?

I'd say so, do you want to drive a ferrari/porsche around your local city/town traffic? How about if nobody ever saw what you were driving and you just arrived at locations?

High-end resources are a pain in the ass to acquire and maintain... the best usually know they're the best and expect a lot of upkeep. The truth is that most work (as someone else mentioned) is boring and using high-end resources when lower-end will do is bad economics.

Most times when you get in a car, you're not racing someone else for your life or pink slips... you're just looking to go to the store and come back. Why waste half a tank and risk a flat in a racing machine just to go pick up milk?

Post reply on HN