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

We Only Hire the Trendiest (2016)

danluu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 420 posts

Re: We Only Hire the Trendiest (2016)

#261

Post by TrentLarr »

busterarm wrote: post #244
TrentLarr wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a beneficiary of the "startup lottery". I am living the dream, and I state that in this anonymous forum to provide perspective to my own feelings about The Rich. In your early thirties twenties, managed effectively, one million dollars is enough to retire on, and live care-free. Two million dollars is enough to live well. Six million dollars is enough to retire on extremely well. Ten million dollars is disgusting…

I guess everyone who ever had the means to create an endowment for a school is a criminal, then. A hundred million dollars is a very powerful tool in the right hands. To suggest that having such means should be criminalized is farcical.

> I guess everyone who ever had the means to create an endowment for a school is a criminal, then.

Yes. That money should have been fairly balanced to the education system before it ever entered the robber baron's hands.

Re: We Only Hire the Trendiest (2016)

#262

Post by boring_twenties »

LargeWu wrote: post #254
boring_twenties wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it discriminatory? All else equal, isn't it clearly better to hire someone with no responsibilities outside of work, than someone who has to be out of the office at 5pm every day to deal with their kids?

The main reason that employers seem to think it would be "better" (for them) is so they can pressure said employees for free labor and overly-aggressive timelines.

Yes, exactly? Why wouldn't I rather hire someone who is usually available at anytime vs. someone who needs to leave at 5pm every day, constantly taking days off to deal with issues with their kids or their school, constantly bringing germs into the office and so on?

Re: We Only Hire the Trendiest (2016)

#263

Post by malvosenior »

LargeWu wrote: post #256
malvosenior wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about denying you employment. It's about hiring someone who can ship software. If someone has publicly shipped software and you can see that, they make for a good candidate. It seems reasonable to me that people who really love writing software and do it a lot would get jobs and be successful in the industry. I wouldn't judge them on their work/life balance, some people really do enjoy programming that much.

If you can't glean that devs with 15+ years of experience on their resume know how to ship software, then maybe the real problem is your ability to evaluate talent.

I've hired tons of developers with 15+ years of experience! A lot of them have amazing OSS contributions. Some don't but all can talk in depth about projects they've delivered.

Hiring based on open source contribution isn't the only signal one can look at, it's just a very strong one (the strongest in my experience).

I'll add that not all developers with 15+ years of experience can ship software. Many have let their skills deteriorate or never pushed themselves to learn new things. It's yet another reason a strong personal portfolio is a good signal.

Re: We Only Hire the Trendiest (2016)

#264

Post by ddevault »

plughs wrote: post #45

One frustration I've had recently is the number of companies encouraging or requiring code in the public sphere. They want to see open-source contributions or an active and impressive personal github page. If your employer is protective of their IP ( mine is ) and/or you are not willing to spend evenings and and weekends on pet projects, you are out of the running. Also >But if you think programmers aren't elitist, t…

I'll be honest: if you have one person who spends 8 hours a day practicing a talent, and another who spends 10 or 12 hours a day practicing their talent, which is going to be better at that skill? Having lots of open source code to read demonstrates in public the prospect's talent for writing code, has examples of their collaboration with others, etc, but also simply means they spend more time writing code and getting good at it, on a broader variety of projects, with a greater diversity of collaborators.

Yes, it's unfair, and if we're just arguing on a sense of lofty idealism, I agree that you shouldn't have to sacrifice your off-hours. But the truth of it is, people who don't code in their spare time aren't as good at it, and people who do are not only more skilled, but are easier to evaluate.

Re: We Only Hire the Trendiest (2016)

#265

Post by nate »

plughs wrote: post #45

One frustration I've had recently is the number of companies encouraging or requiring code in the public sphere. They want to see open-source contributions or an active and impressive personal github page. If your employer is protective of their IP ( mine is ) and/or you are not willing to spend evenings and and weekends on pet projects, you are out of the running. Also >But if you think programmers aren't elitist, t…

I'm totally in agreement that that would be discriminatory. And no doubt hiring managers are sadly looking for quantity and crazy amounts of open source wizardry. But I have a slightly alternative take that might be helpful for folks struggling with this problem of "Job interviews want open source, and I just can't contribute."

I've been on both sides of this table quite a bit as an employee and as someone who hires a lot for like 20 years.

As an employer, what I like to look for when I ask for a GitHub profile is not that I'm seeing an insane prolific coder who will only spend time at work and on my business or "bleeds code". What I'm looking for is a signal that this person has the wherewithal to communicate code to a larger audience. Can they make their PR readable to someone else? Can they ship a project no matter how small that would make sense to an outsider? Can they teach other devs? Can they find things to abstract that someone else would find useful?

As for time, can I show you a couple projects of mine: https://github.com/n8/bust_rails_etags and https://github.com/n8/nectarine

Remove the boilerplate and they are both ~30 lines of code. https://github.com/n8/bust_rails_etags/blob/master/lib/bust_... and https://github.com/n8/nectarine/blob/master/lib/nectarine.rb

Neither are very popular or show off any code wizardry. These things aren't impressive in the least. You might even argue they are dumb and useless. Fine! But both projects have been great conversation pieces when I'm talking to folks trying to hire me.

I'm showing (at least trying to show) those same things I'm looking for as a boss: I look for things to abstract, I take the time to communicate with clarity, I teach other devs, etc.

And as for an organization who says: "Absolutely NO public code of yours on Github or you're fired." First, who are these orgs? There should be a shitlist of companies who wipe out their employees Github profiles. But... this seems to be a lot more rare of a case, and I've worked in a lot of places.

Yes, there's plenty worried about their IP being leaked, but there's plenty of code to write that teaches a concept that isn't near a company's IP. But if you're really worried about upsetting a boss, I would take a crack at talking to someone (a boss, hr person, etc.) who has the authority to take a peak at putting out a project or two like I describe. Since these aren't mind blowing things, but tiny little utilities or ways of showing off a non-proprietary concept, it's very likely you'll be met with yesses. Even that talk of convincing your boss to "YES" about publishing something sounds like a great story to share with a future employer ;)

So I agree, there are folks using open source poorly as a signal, but for those out there with the complaint that "My organization won't let me. Or I don't have time to contribute the amazing things I know I can contribute.", the hurdle isn't as big as you think. A lot of us employers aren't looking for amazing, gigantic, magic contributions to the world. Just a couple handfuls of code to show how you think and communicate with others.

Re: We Only Hire the Trendiest (2016)

#267

Post by _lacroix »

edwinjm wrote: post #198
BubRoss wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Javascript is a flexible and fluid language in my opinion. Using modern JITs gets you a scripting language that is many times faster than other languages, but Node.js itself is based around async callbacks for the simplest stuff with no easy way out, which makes it worth avoiding. Lua JIT however is sane, simple and even faster, but the infrastructure and tools surrounding it are bare in comparison.

"but Node.js itself is based around async callbacks for the simplest stuff with no easy way out, which makes it worth avoiding". Huh? Async code is so powerful. You can use promises instead of callbacks. And you can easily make a async call "synchronous" by adding the await keyword in front of it.

It's not that other languages don't have async code...they just do it using multiple threads or other patterns that are nicer to work with than JS.

Re: We Only Hire the Trendiest (2016)

#268

Post by ghaff »

boring_twenties wrote: post #262
LargeWu wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main reason that employers seem to think it would be "better" (for them) is so they can pressure said employees for free labor and overly-aggressive timelines.

Yes, exactly? Why wouldn't I rather hire someone who is usually available at anytime vs. someone who needs to leave at 5pm every day, constantly taking days off to deal with issues with their kids or their school, constantly bringing germs into the office and so on?

Toxic individuals like you should really find some other industry to pollute.

Re: We Only Hire the Trendiest (2016)

#269

Post by jefftk »

close04 wrote: post #71
jtcruthers wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What's underdressing when it comes to such a startup interview? Flip-flops, jorts, and a cutoff tee that says "GTL" in a neon font of your choice.

> I can assume flip-flops would be a case of underdressing but I think that would be a bit ridiculous for any kind of interview regardless. That's what I said in my comment but would anyone reasonably show up like that in an interview? A suit may or may not be overdressing but flip-flops or anything like that would definitely fall below just "underdressing". It would just be unreasonable and offensive if you ask me (…

At Google I've interviewed candidates wearing flip flops and shorts in the summer. I barely noticed, and it didn't affect my thinking on them. Some people dress up, some don't. This isn't "wear whatever you want to an interview" advice, but a datapoint of "I can think of people doing that, and it was fine".

(Disclosure: speaking only for myself)

Re: We Only Hire the Trendiest (2016)

#270

Post by boring_twenties »

ghaff wrote: post #268
boring_twenties wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, exactly? Why wouldn't I rather hire someone who is usually available at anytime vs. someone who needs to leave at 5pm every day, constantly taking days off to deal with issues with their kids or their school, constantly bringing germs into the office and so on?

Toxic individuals like you should really find some other industry to pollute.

So we have a personal attack, an unsubstantiated assumption, and zero substantive argument. And I'm the toxic individual? Perhaps you should find a different message board to pollute.
Post reply on HN