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

Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

kaggle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 338 posts

Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

#191

Post by echelon »

cliglot wrote: post #177

[flagged]

Dang, YC needs to figure out if HN is going to tolerate this or not. It's rotting the community.

I am so sick and tired of being harassed and flagged and downvoted to -4 for being a builder.

These people are destroying this community. You need to do something .

Here's OP's disgusting comment:

> You should kill yourself then. You’d never have to see a single one of them again! And the average IQ in your country will raise by a bit.

> Did your mom not buy you that Lego set you wanted or something? I fail to see how internet comments prevent you from “building”.

I am getting this bullshit on every social media. It is a disease. HN needs to purge the community of this madness.

The people building are being harassed.

Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

#193

Post by Schlagbohrer »

inigyou wrote: post #179
nz wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the exception of _one_ company that I worked at, pretty much every[0] company was a struggle between engineering and management. Engineering wants to get the software correct, and management wants to fire-hose features into the market. Most of the time (so more than half, at least), management tends to have a compulsion to mindlessly imitate what other companies/competitors are doing, usually without prioritizat…

Most of the time customers buy the thing with the shiniest marketing, and shininess of marketing depends upon features in relation to the competition.

The Xbox 360 was called that instead of the Xbox 2, because it was gonna sit on shelves next to the Playstation 3 and MSFT didn't want consumers to look at "2" next to "3".

Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

#194

Post by ecshafer »

Zigurd wrote: post #176
nz wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the exception of _one_ company that I worked at, pretty much every[0] company was a struggle between engineering and management. Engineering wants to get the software correct, and management wants to fire-hose features into the market. Most of the time (so more than half, at least), management tends to have a compulsion to mindlessly imitate what other companies/competitors are doing, usually without prioritizat…

One of my first gigs as a consultant was to write a project management system for a company that didn't really need a custom project management system. The CEO pulled me aside and told me the only important feature of the project management system was that you couldn't assign the same priority to two features. I would be blamed for making such a crappy project management system, but that's what I was there for. Once…

> the only important feature of the project management system was that you couldn't assign the same priority to two feature

That is a good idea for a project management system. Force ranking of priorities.

Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

#195

Post by bluegatty »

nz wrote: post #63
jagged-chisel wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we need to address the underlying causes of people outsourcing their thinking like that. And a big contribution is “move fast.” No one has time to read, process, and think, because The Powers That Be (capital) want their results now.

With the exception of _one_ company that I worked at, pretty much every[0] company was a struggle between engineering and management. Engineering wants to get the software correct, and management wants to fire-hose features into the market. Most of the time (so more than half, at least), management tends to have a compulsion to mindlessly imitate what other companies/competitors are doing, usually without prioritizat…

"decisions after snorting a long line of social-media-psychosis and TED talks."

And yet - they are the one's paying you and everyone else somehow?

I think you might be missing something fundamental, start by considering that what is 'good software' is not an intrinsic measure, but a measure of what it does.

The only reason we really need 'intrinsically good' software, is if it's very long lived and a ton of people are going to come to depend on it.

People trying to make oak furniture when in most cases what we want is IKEA.

That said - AI or no AI - there's no excuse for not keeping a grip on things, whatever kind of 'grip' that might be.

Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

#196

Post by paulcole »

palmotea wrote: post #170
rob74 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That school of thought echoes today in statements like (paraphrasing) "you may like home office more, and I may not have any hard evidence that working from the office is better, but trust me, it improves collaboration, even if the people you work with aren't in the same office!"

I think you're both talking about personality problems: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/22/opinion/office-work-wfh-b... : > The Secret Reason Bosses Want Everyone Back in the Office, Every Day of the Week > ... > Case by case, there may be good reasons for teams to work together in person. As a general rule, though, it turns out that ordering people back to the office full time is a power and status move. It’s a sign…

I mean employees pushing for remote work is a status and power play, too. I’d imagine self-centered employees don’t like being told where to work either.

Office work isn’t objectively bad and remote work isn’t objectively good.

If you like one and dislike the other, shocker you’re going to find fault with the other side’s reasoning.

Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

#197

Post by ewild »

freedomben wrote: post #94
Forgeties79 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don’t typically have to approve and submit their super’s work IME so I’m curious what you mean. If they write you unclear slop emails then constantly bother them for clarification until they fix it.

In startups it's extremely common to have management still write code. Hell I'm CTO and I write a lot of code.

I know there can be CTOs who write a lot of code and be good, but I hope to God you're not my CTO because he is a nightmare in this regard right now. We aren't even a startup anymore we have 80 engineers and he pushed 200k lines this week

Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

#198

Post by voncheese »

jagged-chisel wrote: post #37
ecshafer wrote: post #31

AI is useful. But the amount of people that are simply offloading all of their thinking to AI and blindly accepting the answer is absurd. Kaggle is most likely using ai to assess the submissions and are not using any common sense by blindly accepting the results.

I think we need to address the underlying causes of people outsourcing their thinking like that. And a big contribution is “move fast.” No one has time to read, process, and think, because The Powers That Be (capital) want their results now.

Agreed and it's unlikely to slow down that descent into slop coding until there are some visible issues with it. The market (i.e. companies) are going all in on AI coding because everyone else is doing it and the concern (understandably) is that if a company doesn't join that race they will lose because they never even entered the race.

The trick will be for companies to go fast enough to be in the race, not winning it, just in it. That will allow the time/space to let someone else, whoever is going fastest, to trip and fall so the rest of the pack can learn.

The tip and fall moment could come as a major incident (reliability and/or security) or loss of revenue because of bad products that customers don't like enough to use.

Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

#200

Post by glimshe »

handoflixue wrote: post #120
glimshe wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with you in principle, I think the parent has a point here: where's the amazing product that couldn't have been done without AI? By now we should have seen some major new invention/company, incredibly fast revolutionary feature rollouts etc but I'm just seeing more of the same.

Curious, what revolutionary products would you cite, that existed within 4 years of the underlying technology? I feel like within that time frame, you're looking at "AOL chatrooms" for the internet, and I'm not even sure what the killer app was for smart phones - GPS was around before that. Computers do admittedly claim the Apollo program pretty early in, so I'll definitely concede that one - just curious if other re…

Visicalc was released 2 years after the Apple II was released. Visicalc changed the world for the better faster than AI has up to this point.
Post reply on HN