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

581–590 of 653 posts

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

#581

Post by cableshaft »

flamedoge wrote: post #352
cableshaft wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm self taught (as in, I've taught myself a lot outside of school, in fact I left school early and only finished my degree after several years in the industry), and I still learned quite a bit from my computer science degree. It forced me to study a wide variety of things I probably wouldn't have spent much time on if on my own (i.e. OS programming, making my own compiler, prolog, finite automata, assembly programmi…

I enjoyed enough of those topics to know what I'm bad at. Video games are culmination of all those things, yet terrible at risk/reward.

> yet terrible at risk/reward

Pretty much. Managed to work on about eight games in a row that didn't make back their investment for three separate companies while I was in the game industry. They failed for various reasons, and a few of them really should have been successful, in my opinion, but oh well. Bad timing (releasing at the same time as heavy hitters), bad marketing, bad luck with reviewers, getting screwed by platform holders, aiming at the wrong audience, bad choice of difficulty, bad choice of which idea to pursue, technical issues that weren't in the testing environment and not discovered until release, overly restrictive and expensive update patching policies with platform holders, all sorts of fun reasons.

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

#582

Post by s73ver_ »

malvosenior wrote: post #572
s73ver_ wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's an asinine policy that screams "We only hire guys right out of college with no other life." It's the kind of thing that only comes up with people who have never been in such a situation, and can't imagine that such a situation would exist.

Again, it’s not a policy (you keep using that word). Are you a hiring manager? If so, would you really hire a person who hasn’t done anything work related for over a year over someone who has? At the end of the day employment is a mutually beneficial deal for the employer and employee. It’s not some sort of social safety net. Performance counts.

If it's something that a hiring manager uses to make a determination, it's a policy.

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

#583

Post by lynnetye »

shanusmagnus wrote: post #578
dhimes wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there's no business incentive for them to do so. But there is one: to save the precious time of valuable people. I think it's an interesting suggestion.

Even more important than that is to get people who really are aligned with what the company actually is, instead of just the standard bullshit that everybody says. I, too, really like the idea, but I wonder if, in practice, it wouldn't work because companies don't introspect deeply enough to understand what makes them distinct? For instance, if what's remarkable about your company is that you have a great culture whe…

You're so spot on. Some companies do not introspect deeply enough, nor do they have the desire! I've met some of them and guess what –– they don't end up creating a profile on Key Values. Honestly, I think it says a lot about team who put in the time and care to create a profile. The exercise of selecting 8 values and qualifying them signals a real desire to invest in people, culture, and to make sure values actually translate into behaviors.

Re: your example, I see it as my job to encourage them to communicate who they are loudly and proudly! There's pressure on both sides (job-seekers and employers) to check all of the boxes. It doesn't make sense to do that at all though.

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

#584

Post by lynnetye »

flaque wrote: post #541
lynnetye wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a web developer who has been thinking about engineering hiring and culture a LOT over the last 6 months. I'm confused about employers' desire to cast a wide net, only to filter through applicants thoughtlessly. Instead, why don't engineering teams save time and energy by articulating their specific engineering values, and sharing that information up front? Be honest. Say divisive things. This will allow job-seeke…

This is quite cool. I'm adding this to Gonzaga University's CS student career guide: https://github.com/gu-app-club/lets-learn-jobs/blob/master/R...

I support this ;) Thanks!

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

#585

Post by JimboOmega »

linkregister wrote: post #530
JimboOmega wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having spent the first 5 or so years at defense companies, I agree. There was no career progression,especially without switching companies. They want you to have a degree so they can charge more, but that's about it. You can easily work on the same project doing the same things for 20 years; I worked with people who did.

Which ones?

I'd rather not denigrate a specific employer.

The reality is that they bill your time to the government a certain way based on your qualifications, and the contract specifies what qualifications you're expected to have. If you grow or change in some way the contract doesn't capture, they can't give you a raise without losing money (since the contract pays them the same).

So classically you have to switch to another job - within the same company, or at another, to advance.

Compounding this is the nature of classified work (which most DoD contracts are). You're in a windowless lab, and you can't really say what you do, or even, often, who you do it for. You get 0 visibility outside your immediate team.

There are exceptions and some ways to get around these realities, but you're really fighting against a system that strongly prefers things remain static.

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

#586

Post by asveikau »

aeorgnoieang wrote: post #504
asveikau wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've got to be careful about assuming things about what people can do based on prior positions. Speaking personally, I have been employed doing windowsy things for ~10 years, probably being typecast by my stint at Microsoft, but I am willing to bet I can out-unix a very sizeable chunk of candidates who think of themselves as Unix people. (Did some Linux kernel hacking in spare time, have been a home user of differe…

> (Did some Linux kernel hacking in spare time, have been a home user of different *BSDs for ~17 years, learned C on Unix.. none of this you can tell from my resume) Maybe you should add that stuff to your resume. I include 'skills' that weren't necessarily relevant to any particular job.

I think such a section would likely be ignored or not understood, and the problem being described is that people brand you as this or that based on work experience. People may even consider it a red flag that you list skills you didn't work with in your most recent position.

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

#587

Post by malvosenior »

s73ver_ wrote: post #582
malvosenior wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, it’s not a policy (you keep using that word). Are you a hiring manager? If so, would you really hire a person who hasn’t done anything work related for over a year over someone who has? At the end of the day employment is a mutually beneficial deal for the employer and employee. It’s not some sort of social safety net. Performance counts.

If it's something that a hiring manager uses to make a determination, it's a policy.

By that logic every decision made during the hiring is a policy. Too vague to be useful imo.

Semantics aside, my point stands: it’s reasonable to hire the best person for the job. A person’s personal problems are just that, personal.

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

#589

Post by lynnetye »

cwyers wrote: post #540
lynnetye wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a web developer who has been thinking about engineering hiring and culture a LOT over the last 6 months. I'm confused about employers' desire to cast a wide net, only to filter through applicants thoughtlessly. Instead, why don't engineering teams save time and energy by articulating their specific engineering values, and sharing that information up front? Be honest. Say divisive things. This will allow job-seeke…

Applicants do not self-filter. If you've ever read resumes for a job listing that haven't been prescreened, you'll be blown away by how many people refuse to self-filter even for basic fitness for the job. Put out a job listing asking for a college degree, and you'll get applicants who are still in school with their graduation date two years in the future looking for an internship. That's an extreme, but people will…

You're not wrong. Hiring has just become a numbers game and I think this is part of the problem. Recruiters blast a thousand engineers with the same dry email. Engineers apply to a hundred different companies. A lot of companies don't consider applications without a personalized note or cover letter, and for good reason. They too want a personalized message.

Let's compare it to dating. A lot of people like dating apps where you can rifle through hundreds of options within minutes. But most people would agree that a matching process that is more personal and human leads to longer lasting relationships.

Despite how many people play the numbers game, there are tons of people who don't, myself included. (And I happen to mean that for both my personal and professional relationships.)

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

#590

Post by oldandtired »

beat wrote: post #518
oldandtired wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Claiming something is easy to do and then making the same errors simply diminished the strength of the argument presented. The comment comes across as "do as I say, not do as I do."

I'm focusing on spelling, not grammar (I consciously exclude grammar from my heuristic, out of respect for non-native English speakers). Are there any misspellings in the OP?

Your use of the term "typos" includes all typographical mistakes, spelling, punctuation, etc.

You don't appear to have spelt any of the words incorrectly. However, you did make a couple of typographical errors. A close look will show them up.

In regards to spelling errors, do you distinguish between the American and the more correct non-American spelling of words?

Post reply on HN