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

Signaling in tech is some fucked up shit (2016)

daiyi.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–205 of 205 posts

Re: Signaling in tech is some fucked up shit (2016)

#201

Post by gaius »

sonnyblarney wrote: post #50
throwawaymath wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The commenter said "statistically speaking" to justify part of their point. I am directly challenging their assertion and requesting evidence that they have 1) actually quantified something in more than a hand wavey manner, and 2) found the (falsifiable) conclusion they stated, based on that analysis. I'm deeply skeptical. People like to throw around percentages and references to statistics to justify their biases, b…

Next time you have a blocked toilet, and the plumber says it's a problem with 'ABC' why don't you just tell him that's not quantifiable! and then tell him you think it's 'XYZ' that's the problem. If someone who interviews thousands of people and finds a correlation between those who have some clojure experience and quality, I believe him. For the simple reason that most programmers don't try very hard and anyone taki…

most programmers don't try very hard and anyone taking the time to even learn a rarely used language is demonstrating a positive quality that most don't.

Once known as the Python Paradox http://www.paulgraham.com/pypar.html

Nowadays I suppose it would be the Clojure Conundrum or the Haskell Happenstance

Re: Signaling in tech is some fucked up shit (2016)

#202

Post by gaius »

curun1r wrote: post #89
panic wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably people are paying you to find good engineers, not just people who match particular profiles. If "rational prejudice" doesn't always find the good engineers, why justify it like this? Wouldn't it be better to take this as evidence that your approach could use improvement?

> people are paying you to find good engineers No, they're paying them to find engineers that will pass the interview process. It's a subtle, but important distinction since prejudices that exist among engineers will naturally develop in recruiters. It's the recruiting equivalent of teaching to the test. And like it or not, the kind of signaling the article describes is real. When an engineer says they can write cloj…

It means you likely cared enough to devote your own time to learning for the sake of learning. And a lot of engineers look at this kind of thing as important and screen for it in interviews.

The curious thing is, I think the number who regard it as important is likely far higher than the number who actually do it. Which is understandable; once you reach a level of seniority you also have many other demands on your time and may not be able to be a hobbyist anymore on top of day job, family commitments and so on. So maybe once you learnt every new language but now you don’t have the opportunity, or you have decided to “go deep” in just a few, established languages. So the power of the signal is highly variable depending both on where the interviewer and interviewee are in their lives.

Also, knowing JS in the late-90s did indicate a curious and ambitious developer. It only went mainstream later...

Re: Signaling in tech is some fucked up shit (2016)

#204

Post by wellpast »

bsder wrote: post #132
wellpast wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your question assumes that the programming talent bell curve for men and women are different, which I wouldn’t expect to be the case.

Almost nothing in nature matches that statement. The "Bell Curve" for females of a species generally has a significantly narrower standard deviation for practically any genetically driven characteristic. The problem is that none of this applies to an individual .

I think there are much more to the dynamics than just genetic distributions. For instance, not every male and female are opting into tech careers; only those w/ interest and/or talent are pursuing tech careers--after this filter, for example, who knows what remains of any genetic distribution?

Re: Signaling in tech is some fucked up shit (2016)

#205

Post by jacques_chester »

jholman wrote: post #194
jacques_chester wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure I would class either of Gmail or Facebook with the Apollo Program in terms of headcount (est. 400k), total cost (estimates from $100-200 Bn), complexity (hundreds of contractors, millions of moving parts, dozens of directly-operated sites, thousands of projects), or novelty (landing on the fricking moon ).

I think Google's total cost is more than $100-200 billion. It's a bit hard to pin down what "total cost" means in this context, though. But their 2017 operating expenses were $82 billion. Each year is higher than the last, but if you add up the last four years, they're over $250 billion. Facebook is about an order of magnitude less, so the Apollo program fits nicely between them.

> It's a bit hard to pin down what "total cost" means in this context, though.

I realise looking back that comparing a company to a project/program isn't really correct. One kind ends, the other tries very hard not to end.

Post reply on HN