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

541–550 of 594 posts

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

#541

Post by troels »

PeterisP wrote: post #433
troels wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you invest under a certain threshold you can actually deduct the full amount from taxes in case of failure. Don't recall the details, but it makes for a pretty sweet deal for angel investors.

If it's fully tax deductible, then you simply don't pay tax on that amount (not reduce your payable tax by that). It saves you about a third of the money, but doesn't make it risk-free.

I was thinking about the EIS scheme. There's some explanation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_Investment_Scheme

I believe the most important part is this:

If EIS shares are disposed of at any time at a loss, such loss can be set against the investor's capital gains or his income in the year of disposal.

So basically, if you take a loss, you can deduct it against any other gains you have.

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

#542

Post by lutusp »

Fuxy wrote: post #540
rafcavallaro wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no such thing as an inexact science. If it is science, it is exact; if it is inexact, it is simply confirmation bias fodder.

I call it inexact because you can't use the classical way of proving theories right or wrong. There's no mathematical calculations you can do to figure out all the implications of that theory. The theories are based on observations of human behavior and they most likely do not cover all edge cases they are however the best we got at the moment in describing human behavior and motivations. If this were to happen in ph…

> I call it inexact because you can't use the classical way of proving theories right or wrong.

If you cannot clearly and empirically prove a theory wrong (in principle), it is not science. Falsifiability is required for science and scientific theories. This doesn't mean all scientific theories are false, it means all scientific theories must not fail a comparison with reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Quote: "The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena."

On that basis, psychology is not a science.

> If this were to happen in physics we'd call it it a failed or incomplete theory.

If this were to happen in physics, people would abandon it, as they abandoned astrology and alchemy.

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

#543

Post by jaredsohn »

hso9791 wrote: post #536
jaredsohn wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn't it be "Carl and me"? I thought there were two rules for these phrases: subject vs. predicate (as illustrated in the parent post) and that you should put yourself last.

That you put yourself last is a question of modesty, not grammar :)

Just did some research and it looks like you are right. I learned both rules as a kid at once and didn't realize the distinction.

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

#545

Post by illumen »

gaving wrote: post #533
ballard wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are three buckets of people you don't want to hire: - helpless - depressed - jerks In my subjective experience: The top one has about %50 shot of being a character flaw, eg, no amount of confidence-building will help. The middle one has the most hope, if the talent potential is significant. The best in the field can be painfully shy as well as depressed. The problem is that depression (not shyness) hurts morale…

- people that put their percentage symbols in the wrong place

    - People who capitalise their sentences.
ps. lol

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

#546

Post by alan_cx »

johnohara wrote: post #272
alan_cx wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most technical types are disconnected from the realities of sales, marketing, finance, law, etc, etc

So are most HR types.

Enough........

By your logic, no position in a business know about business apart from oh so clever programmers? Oh please. Look across HN at the threads about the psychology, depression, and so on. Programmers and some of the most insular people out there. No problem as such, but don't tell me they have some special ability to cover all bases in a business. That has to be a joke.

If you think about it, HR are one of the few departments that are more likely to know about other departments. They have to, its their job. Do you think marketing has more interest in various departments as HR? Developers? Try talking to sales people, they think the idiot developers know nothing about that people want. Try talking to accountants, they think marketing just blows money. And so on. Oh yes, my department is best and every one else is a monkey. Yeah, heard the inter department politics over and over again. Its tired, boring and gets in the way of business. If idiots just grew up, and respected each others job functions productivity would benefit. But, hey.....

A lot of the problem with HR is arrogant people in other departments who don't do the hiring job properly, then spit the dummy because they find out their funky programmer got fired for fraud from their previous job, or something, because arrogant programmer didn't want HR to do the back ground checks, because arrogant programmer thought new programmer would be one of the boys.

Please, stop this nonsense.

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

#547

Post by seanmcdirmid »

ballard wrote: post #479
LaGrange wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, spotting and weeding out sociopaths is one of the points. I know that you may believe that you're a good judge of character, but actually a smart sociopath (not the norm, btw) is likely to be able to game you just as easily as the test.

There are three buckets of people you don't want to hire: - helpless - depressed - jerks In my subjective experience: The top one has about %50 shot of being a character flaw, eg, no amount of confidence-building will help. The middle one has the most hope, if the talent potential is significant. The best in the field can be painfully shy as well as depressed. The problem is that depression (not shyness) hurts morale…

Your buckets are quite simplistic and I doubt your company will be successful. First, if this is the states, you are not allowed to discriminate against clinical depression, so (2) will just lead to a lawsuit eventually. As for (1), if they have the skills are they helpless? Jerks are quite deplorable, but its a gradient right? How much jerkiness do you tolerate, or do you want saints?

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

#548

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

6d0debc071 wrote: post #271
Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We tend to say anyone involved in the process can veto and I'd extend that to HR if they'd shown themselves to add to the process. Work permit issues are entirely a reason to veto and they're better placed to spot that sort of thing that the dev team, similarly issues around references and the like. The issue here isn't with HR per se, it's with a bad HR department overreaching, but personally I'd be just as skeptica…

> We tend to say anyone involved in the process can veto and I'd extend that to HR if they'd shown themselves to add to the process. IIRC there was a woman a few months back with Valve who couldn't get the staff she needed because of that sort of veto setup.

That may be the case.

It works for us because the people involved all understand the log jam it can cause if people don't behave properly but I can see in another company (or even division) it might not work. You would only need one or two people deciding they wanted to throw their weight around to wreck it.

Maybe I'm lucky but I've worked with some good HR people who understood where they could add value and where they should step back. To me this really feels like a good people / bad people thing rather than an HR people / technical people thing.

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

#549

Post by kabouseng »

buyx wrote: post #228
kabouseng wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Software consulting places and body shops (unfortunately the line is increasingly blurry) don't generally do them. There was small software company in Jhb that used to send candidates for invasive IQ and personality tests to a psychologist, but they don't exist anymore. Many big corporates have psychometricians on staff. At least one even has a department dedicated to psychometric testing. There's plenty of demand fo…

Or just use the Employment Equity Act to discriminate directly if the candidate fits...

The Employment Equity Act doesn't make discriminatory testing illegal, it legalizes discrimination.

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

#550

Post by UK-Al05 »

karlkatzke wrote: post #510
foobarbazqux wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, my main objection is to hiring people on the basis of their character, whether it's with a test or not. Assess for whether or not the person can do the job and make you a profit.

Can you spot the person who interviews well, but is a skilled sociopath who will destroy the morale of your team, causing other skilled talent to leave? That's the value of these tests ( when properly applied ): They allow an evaluator to make statistically accurate predictions of specific types of behavior. The key is the two words: statistically and specific. A single composite score will not tell you anything, but…

You can't catch psychopaths using tests like these. The whole point of being a psychopaths is that you can change the perception of your personality at will.

So what your letting in is a subgroup of people who pass, and psychopaths.

Post reply on HN