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

Oxide computer 3D rack guided tour

explorer.oxide.computer

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–224 of 224 posts

Re: Oxide computer 3D rack guided tour

#221

Post by esseph »

dijit wrote: post #219
esseph wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You do realize that the person you're replying to is not making a value judgement and probably agrees with you. No, in fact I see no indicators at all that it is the case. > If you have two groups of people, one with a low but nonzero signal that they can do something, the other with no signals, is it still a good idea to use that signal? It may or may not be. It depends on the quality of the signal itself, its rel…

>> You do realize that the person you're replying to is not making a value judgement and probably agrees with you. > No, in fact I see no indicators at all that it is the case. Really, I read it as if it's a bad thing, but a true thing. Like they're reinforcing my point, that if you have 10,000 qualified candidates and capacity to review 500- grepping for Havard becomes an "easy" way to filter. Treating people with n…

> Like they're reinforcing my point, that if you have 10,000 qualified candidates and capacity to review 500- grepping for Havard becomes an "easy" way to filter.

The best engineers I have ever worked with mostly didn't either finish college or even go in the first place. Entirely self taught.

Re: Oxide computer 3D rack guided tour

#223

Post by NewsaHackO »

kaashif wrote: post #160
esseph wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading this makes me want to throw up. Do not mix up opportunity and capability.

You do realize that the person you're replying to is not making a value judgement and probably agrees with you. If you have two groups of people, one with a low but nonzero signal that they can do something, the other with no signals, is it still a good idea to use that signal? You'll get fewer bad employees, but you also discard many capable people who haven't had the opportunity to even try for your signal. It stil…

Yes, I didn't look at the replies until late, but you are correct. The invariant of the situation is that there are a large number of people who want 1-2 positions, and there are not enough resources in the company to interview and evaluate them all in person. My point is that when you remove measures like a performance on a project from play, and are forced to whittle down a group of applicants to an interviewable-sized group, people will start to pick increasingly "unfair" ways to do so. No one wants to risk hiring a person for a position who simply cannot perform at the level necessary for the job. If they don't have a project to separate the people who can perform versus the people who can't, then they have to use other markers to say why one person has a better chance of performing well than another, of which previous employer/alumni and references from trusted sources are by far the easiest ones.
Post reply on HN