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

He got 1%, we can't hire him

codingjohnson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 594 posts

Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him

#131

Post by einhverfr »

Drakim wrote: post #123
antirez wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with HR is that they do tasks they are not qualified to as a mission . It's the role that's broken, note the teams.

It's not even really their fault. The HR person wouldn't know about databases and the deep knowledge and great insight a candidate might possess. What the HR person would know is how the person appears socially and how he manages to present himself. The company should make sure the HR person isn't the only one deciding if somebody gets hired or not, because the HR person simply does not possess the tools needed to ge…

I could see a possible role for HR. I don't think it remotely resembles what they are usually there to do.

True story: I got an ad for a consulting position for "Postgre"

The description had as a listed skill:

"PostgreSQL USE GOOGLE TO VERIFY SPELLING"

That's a bad sign there.

Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him

#132

Post by BetaCygni »

amberes wrote: post #110

I once failed a test because I wasn't good at abstract thinking. And they decided to be a good developer, you had to be a good abstract thinker. At that time, the test was already more than 10 years old. I didn't get the job, although I had several references that I was one of the best and also most social and motivated developers they had ever worked with. One of the references also stated that I was really good at…

If you're good at abstract thinking everything is the same. Even being the same is the same as not being the same ;). Really a good skill for software design, as you can build a lot of functionality that looks different on the same base and save a lot of time. Your software will also become easier to maintain and to extend.

Thinking "out of the box" is creativity. This isn't the same as abstract thinking, though you can "fake" being creative by seeing things are the same and proposing a solution that worked for the other problem.

It is my experience that purely abstract things are not usable in the real world by real people. They simply won't get it or making it do things is way too hard (inner platform effect). A good piece of software has a abstract core and a very concrete interface.

Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him

#133

Post by chris_wot »

The HR guy once called me into his office to ask why I was leaving. To which I said "excuse me?", and then he turned around his monitor which showed my LinkedIn profile.

Turns out I had stuffed up a few of the dates for a former job and it looked like I working for another company!

I was curious as to what he thought I was doing all day in the office. Even more curious - why the hell was he tracking me on LinkedIn? I suppose I shouldn't have been that surprised.

Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him

#134

Post by ajanuary »

Houshalter wrote: post #125
ajuc wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can solve fizbuzz without modulo operator: bool divisible_by(int a, int b) { return a==((a/b)*b); } It doesn't require anything more than knowledge about what division means, and I think it's fair play to require such knowledge from programmers.

Maybe this is a stupid question, but wouldn't that always return true? (a/b)*b just cancels out the b right? Unless there is weird floating point stuff going on.

It's integer maths. For example: a = 10, b = 3 10/3 = 3 3 * 3 = 9 9 != 10

Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him

#135

Post by tehwalrus »

mgkimsal wrote: post #116
tehwalrus wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

remember that MBTIs have no evidence base - they can be helpful in allowing someone to "see" jobs they might be happier in, as they did for me, but they don't necessarily measure anything statistically significant about a personality.

Sure - they're not the be-all answer to everything, but I've found them helpful in (re)assessing myself lately. I found much more static-ness in my IQ over the last 30+ years. I was actually surprised at how consistent it was over decades and various tests (and, dare I say, slightly disappointed).

I agree about MBTI - until I understood that I was allowed to have a personality preference for perceiving over judging (preferring to live in the moment than plan ahead in detail) I was stressing myself worrying about why I was so rubbish at planning, rather than trying to find a career where it was less important! (the only careers I've come up with so far are stock exchange trading and politics - if anyone has any others I'd be interested to hear. I like coding, especially in sprints, but I am absolutely terrible at estimating how long it will take me to write things.)

I find that every time I take an IQ test I get a higher score - I presumed because I'm learning what sort of questions IQ tests ask and how to answer them faster - so when required I just quote the first ever test I took as my IQ (which was a very unscientific one, unfortunately, by answering questions along with a TV program. I also had a score bump for age, because I was only 16.) I was, at the time, delighted that I got higher than my maths teacher! remember too, though, that IQ is heavily biased towards people with a "western" education.

IQ isn't very important though, once you get above 130 - the differences don't correlate to greater performance in any real test cases. The difference in performance at those levels is to do with attitude, experience, vocabulary (outside of technical fields I've studied/worked in, mine is awful), and all sorts of soft factors.

(apologies if I'm wrong, but I assume that anyone with karma on hacker news is IQ >= 130 or so.)

Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him

#136

Post by solistice »

madaxe wrote: post #113
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #3

> The problem here is that we didn't have the final say. Yup ... There is going to be a real big shift in the next twenty years. We look at things like Developer Anarchy and say "what let the programmers run the company?" - but that's the wrong idea. It's let those with software literacy run the company - just as 500 years ago those who were literate took over running companies For a while we shall see parallel organ…

This isn't just about developers and hiring practices. This is about systemisation and bullshit metrics being used to make opaque and life-changing decisions. This is about the same kind of shitty thinking that results in surveillance states. "We can't employ/feed you/let you travel/let you have a mortgage/let you open a bank account, you are Invalid." "Invalid, what do you mean?" "We are not allowed to tell invalids…

Which by the way is the same process you go through for college admissions. "We're sorry, we can't admit you" "Why?" "This email was sent by an automated system. For questions, please send an email to admissions@uni.edu" OR "Congratulations, you've been admitted" "Nice, but I'd like to know for what" "Well, we decided that way. You're in, why do you care?"

Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him

#137

Post by Deestan »

Houshalter wrote: post #125
ajuc wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can solve fizbuzz without modulo operator: bool divisible_by(int a, int b) { return a==((a/b)*b); } It doesn't require anything more than knowledge about what division means, and I think it's fair play to require such knowledge from programmers.

Maybe this is a stupid question, but wouldn't that always return true? (a/b)*b just cancels out the b right? Unless there is weird floating point stuff going on.

There's not floating point stuff going on, that's why it works. :)

a and b are ints, so a/b is truncated (rounded down) before applying *b.

Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him

#138

Post by einhverfr »

mathattack wrote: post #103
antirez wrote: post #14

Improving a company 101: * Get rid of HR people. * Profit.

I disagree very much. There are many bad HR people, and many HR people who are given bad direction. It's very hard to imagine a company of over 30 or 40 people surviving without one. Is the CEO supposed to be up on all the HR rules? Is the CEO out in the market calibrating salaries every day? Does the CEO have time to analyze optimal organization designs? Should the CEO do all the initial fit screens? Chase down back…

> Does the CEO have time to analyze optimal organization designs?

Optimal for what? I do think the CEO or someone similar needs to figure out what you want from the organization and design it. HR may have input but it is just input.

HR can do the market calibration research. That's a good role for them. Initial fit? That should be the team or team manager. Background checks? Either HR or an administrative assistant somewhere.

Without HR, that work should fall upon the team manager and maybe some assistance somewhere. It can be done though.

Bottom line, yes, there is a role for HR, I think. No, I don't think it is a big role.

Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him

#139

Post by bencollier49 »

robin2 wrote: post #27
valleyer wrote: post #17

Is "me and X" as the subject of a sentence valid British English grammar? It comes across as really uneducated.

It's fairly common. If one says "X and I" one risks coming across as being a bit Brian Sewell.

Yep, this. My wife refuses to use it. It's a form of inverted snobbery and a symptom of the UK's class culture.

Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him

#140

Post by kabouseng »

buyx wrote: post #42
penguat wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here in the UK, it's not uncommon in large companies.

It's common with big companies in South Africa as well. It may have to do with how difficult it is to fire someone under our laws, but a few months probation is usually good enough, and fairer.

And here I thought my company was one of the few doing it in SA...
Post reply on HN