131–140 of 214 posts
I always chuckle to myself when I read this because I realize that one day Zuck's going to say "Hey, I'm older" and by extension he'll have to also say "Ouch, I'm dumber". I suspect he'll recant the statement due to "youthful arrogance" at some point!
No one owes you a job. If you think companies are missing out on your amazing talent, start your own and prove them wrong. This is a million times easier to do with software than with a white-shoe Wall Street firm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a zero value argument because psychopaths will mimic whatever criterion you have. So the argument "psychopaths will hack your criterion" is worthless. And the point in things like musical taste and blogs is that they are not that easy to fake. You have to make a real investment (spend time listening to music, reading,...). That's the point of signaling, which is what muscial taste is.
Psychopaths can fake a personality test better than you can design around it. They can't fake a work-sample test.
As for work sample tests, there are also those who criticize programming tests because they say people might just be bothered by the interview situation and in reality be much better programmers. If you let the candidate do it at home, they can fake it by letting somebody else do the coding.
I personally would certainly want to see some demonstration of programming skill.
That linked 42Floors blog post is terribly self-unaware. > Most startups take the building of their culture very seriously, especially when the culture is still new and quite fragile. If your culture is so fucking fragile that a guy wearing a suit (as opposed to a T-shirt and jeans) poses an existential threat to it, you need to re-evaluate whether you are actually building a company 'culture', or just some random ag…
I'd like to think that the interviewee responded along those lines when the issue of his clothing was pointed out. Were I in his position, I'd be concerned I was being interviewed by a group of amateurs.
Sure there is; don't join the clique. There is no law, private or otherwise, that says you can't play your own game and win.
Despite the hype, the Valley isn't the only game in town even today.
They can self-reinforce all they want but if they start losing because of outside forces then they will have to reexamine their assumptions or fail.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Edit: re "religious" argument: surely you can get some non-alcoholic drink at a bar? Yes, and surely you can socialize in a brothel without actually engaging in their primary service, but that doesn't mean that holding part of a job interview there wouldn't create a differentially hostile environment to (among others) people who have religious objections to prostitution.
Oh dear, if you want to accommodate for all religious preferences, it will become tricky soon. What if some religious person thinks homosexuals are bound for hell and they will be contaminated if they work alongside them? Seems like a real problem to me: either you discriminate against the religious person, or you discriminate against the homosexual, can't have them both. In fact if you think requiring drinking is di…
I'm a Christian, but I have no problem working for or with practising Muslims, as long as regular attendance at the Mosque is not a job requirement. I don't drink, but I have no problem working for or with people who like to drink, as long as regular attendance at the bar is not a job requirement.
Edit To speak to your examples: the religious person should have the professionalism to keep their views of homosexuality out of their attitude at work. Similarly, the homosexual should keep their views of religion out of work. Tolerance does not mean agreement. It means we agree to disagree and get along with each other despite the disagreements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many people do not drink for religious reasons. You are not obligated to hire people who drink, but by virtue of employment discrimination laws, you are obligated not to discriminate against women and minorities in hiring.
Do a much lower percentage of (non pregnant) women drink? If that's true I certainly never noticed it. But I'm not from the US.
Personal aside: my daughter isn't job searching any time soon (she's a toddler), but the idea of her having to do a job interview at a bar makes me want to sue someone. "Scorched earth" wouldn't even begin to describe it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. I'd decline and not get the job. I know that already [hint: I don't drink]. It is quite amazing how many people are completely oblivious to their own biases.
Who says they are oblivious? Maybe they just don't like to hire people who don't drink. Why should they be obliged to hire them?
"I want to stress the importance of being young and technical. Young people are just smarter.” — Mark Zuckerberg I always chuckle to myself when I read this because I realize that one day Zuck's going to say "Hey, I'm older" and by extension he'll have to also say "Ouch, I'm dumber". I suspect he'll recant the statement due to "youthful arrogance" at some point!
This post is brilliant and correct. The best part is where he closes with the acknowledgement that the system works... to a limited degree. He's not just slamming it . It is actually an ok way to minimize risk at the cost of upside in the short term. But it is unscalable for a couple key reasons. (1) Lack of diversity is lack of ideas and experiences, you may fail to find the "next big thing" simply because your echo…