411–420 of 437 posts
They are only hiring testers which is a big resource waste but lots of autists can create kickass software without needing to waste resources on analysis paralysis.
Some of them. Most of them, like most ordinary people, do not have the capability or the discipline for coding. Testing seems to be within the capability of more of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a person who was a young developer in the .com boom and a middle-age programmer now, I think youth puts too much focus on this and lack experience in this area. I think there is a general opinion that the old guys will ruin everything and serious up the environment. When my experience has been the exact opposite, the old guys usually bring in some good practices the young guys find are good ideas but they really d…
To them not participating is the same as refusal. I have also been rejected from a startup like this for not being "enthusiastic" enough.
I guess it would bother me more if we competed in a constrained market but given that development talent, has historically been, is currently and will be in the future a under-supplied market. I tend to look at these entities as just shooting themselves in the foot when it comes to the competition for talent. They are doing more harm to themselves than to the prospects of the rejected candidate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My personal experience is valid to share. And it's not insensitive to share it. If you feel you have data that counters my experience, it would be good to share. Then we can discuss both sides.
Lol, you can't wrap your naive opinions as "personal experience" and then apply them to a generality of millions of people. You passed off this claim as real . Just because you frame it as personal experience doesn't suddenly make it not a form of prejudice, and doesn't suddenly make it correct and valid. I don't need data to counter your "personal experience" a.k.a. anecdotal evidence, because it was never valid to…
Sharing personal experiences is how normal humans learn about each other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having empathy goes both ways. If one party has empathy and the other does not, it makes the relationship difficult. If 'difficult' is the cut off point for a working relationship for a person, team or business, then that is ok. There are plenty of working environments where difficult relationships can work. But certainly not all of them.
That is completely lacking in selfawareness, showing no empathy while insisting others lack it while giving only a weak rationalization furiously insisted upon. That is peak neurotypical denying that /they/ are the problem because that is impossible - they're the "normal" ones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Resolving a dispute involves, y'know, actually talking and understanding each other's point of view. But that requires empathy. History would disagree, and then hit you with a stick until you agree with its disagreement. Resolving a reasonable dispute (aka, a debate) can be done via talking it out, but this requires both parties to agree upon the rules for "winning" this dispute. Typically, in regards to physical co…
Holy shit, I can't believe I even bothered trying to reason with someone on the Internet who seriously thinks an impromptu wrestling match is a good way to resolve a disagreement at work. You're either a troll or larping. "Wrestling things out builds comradery"? We're talking about a disagreement about a work issue in a software company. Ladies and gentlemen, exhibit A: kempbellt. EDIT: I'm eagerly awaiting being cha…
I said wrestling is an effective team building tool. If you are trying to settle on which version of React to use in a project, weigh out the pros and cons in an office. If you are looking to work more effectively with some of your coworkers wrestling, or any other form of grappling martial-art (I've enjoyed BJJ), is a valid option. In case you aren't aware of what this is, it's essentially playing three-dimensional chess with your opponent until someone ends up in a physical checkmate. It's fun, respectful, good exercise, and great for building camaraderie - as I mentioned. I'm not talking about scrapping things out in the parking lot like a couple of high schoolers. If you'd rather play actual chess, that's also a valid option. At a previous company, my team did a break-out room together. Do what works for you.
"Eagerly awaiting a challenge" from someone you are disagreeing with on the internet is inciting a challenge, in a very childish way.
Also, Google larping. It doesn't make sense in your sentence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I agree. But when the situation is at abuse acceptance level, then we are beyond that. I brought entitlement because absent that, it is possible to directly say to aspie that this or that crosses the line. We are not talking about making him not awkward, just not abusive. At that point not just aspie failed to listen, but also neurotypical people around failed to protect whoever is victim of that abuse and set p…
An ancient torture method was small water dripping on the forehead. Persistent small events over time can be abuse.
So it is pretty good analogy. When people both peraon with asperger and working with one having asperger can talk back, reorganize work tasks, move tables, prevent the one having asperger from doing juniors code reviews, torture don't have to happen.
It is when having asperger is treated as license to abuse or sign of "being the one that is more logical/technical and therefore right" when it becomes abuse acceptance. It is the "he has asperger therefore it is ok for him to do it and you have to be subjected to that" that makes it so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Resolving a dispute involves, y'know, actually talking and understanding each other's point of view. But that requires empathy. History would disagree, and then hit you with a stick until you agree with its disagreement. Resolving a reasonable dispute (aka, a debate) can be done via talking it out, but this requires both parties to agree upon the rules for "winning" this dispute. Typically, in regards to physical co…
bros'll be bros
EDIT: BTW did you try out the HN Block List browser extension? Makes the site a lot more bearable than the vanilla experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's performative hypermasculinity. In the 80s and 90s (and to a slightly lesser degree now still) nerds were generally portrayed as effeminate and unmanly. However they would still retain similar toxic ideas about manliness while dismissing "jocks" or anyone too popular or outside their culture. Basically the "while you were busy partying and having sex I studied the way of the sword" meme but played straight. This…
A couple notes I wanted to point out. First, the competitions do not have to be physical. Most commonly I see intellectual sparing. Attempting to be so quick intellectually that the aggressor pushes their idea through by not giving anyone else time to think is a very common tactic. Second, play fighting is one of the quickest ways to learn how to check your ego and gain humility. I've met plenty of very smart people…
I'm saying that thinking workplace disputes are situations that should be solved through domination rather than understanding is emotionally immature.
Even if the disagreement is entirely irrational, the severity of the disagreement alone can indicate more deeply rooted problems with the current dispute just being used as a proxy war. It might not even stem from a work related problem.
As much as programmers (I'm one btw) tend to complain about managers, this is actually something a good manager is aware of. If a conflict arises or an employee is unhappy it's their job to figure out how to best resolve not just the current situation but also prevent it from recurring -- a bad manager would simply enforce policy and enact punishments, a good manager will try to improve the environment and working conditions.
"Competitive sports" (including team sports which really must be co-operative at the team level even if the teams compete directly) are good for gaining humility and building mutual respect, yes, but the PayPal talk wasn't about that.
It was about using domination (whether literal physical domination through impromptu wrestling or metaphorical) to resolve work disputes. The very idea evokes testosterone-fueled high school bullies, not fully-developed grown adults.
HNers tend to cheer for the idea of meritocracy but this is the worst kind of meritocracy: you're not even filtering for being good at the job, you're just filtering for being good at whatever mechanism you're using to establish dominance (whether it's physical altercations or as you suggest Ben Shapiro like dazzling).
> Five years in, 75% of Ultranauts’ staff are on the autistic spectrum – and one reason for this is its innovative approach to hiring. Given that autism has a significant male to female ratio (quick Googling suggested 4:1 for Male:Female for autism), this seems to indicate that their percentage of women developers is low.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless you own the company, you don't pick all your managers, coworkers, and clients. It's an exceptionally valuable team skill to be able to work with someone you wouldn't invite out for a beer. Learning to work with different viewpoints and behaviors builds character and makes one more competitive. Effective managers know this.
You don't need to pick all of your managers, coworkers, and clients. That's the point of vetting a company culture before you join. In general, the culture should be a reflection of a shared ideology for business and interpersonal behavior. There is a ton of room for variety within that, but it pins some underlying important traits. Being a good culture fit does not mean you have to like them so much that you're invi…
A good manager will inspire motivation, bring comfort, foster a nonthreatening environment with an appropriate level of conflict, and shape a competitive force to be reckoned with. This does not mean creating a hug box. Not having a hug box doesn't mean employees have to be unhappy. It's bad managers whose ineffectiveness allows negative traits (which everybody has) to impact other employees.