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

Inside the Mirrortocracy

carlos.bueno.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 214 posts

Re: Inside the Mirrortocracy

#191

Post by gadders »

austinz wrote: post #3

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…

If an interviewee brought me a gift, I'd think they were either deeply incompetent, or a lick arse, or both.

Re: Inside the Mirrortocracy

#192

Post by eli_gottlieb »

> "The notion that diversity in an early team is important or good is completely wrong. You should try to make the early team as non-diverse as possible."

Why the bloody hell would you optimize for uniformity?

Re: Inside the Mirrortocracy

#193

Post by eli_gottlieb »

austinz wrote: post #3

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…

As a worker, if a company expected me to bring them a gift just to interview, I would figure that they either come from some strange foreign culture, or are complete arrogant assholes.

Re: Inside the Mirrortocracy

#194

Post by eli_gottlieb »

facepalm wrote: post #91
opendais wrote: post #80

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?

There's a difference between a legal obligation and a rational move. It's not illegal to refuse to hire non-drinkers, but it is both irrational and even (if your firm becomes powerful in the labor market) somewhat unethical.

Re: Inside the Mirrortocracy

#195

Post by facepalm »

jdbernard wrote: post #154
facepalm wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you went through the Google Scholar thing, haven't you saved some articles you approved of? Why not point me directly to it? I don't really have time to become an expert in this by dozens of articles.

> I don't really have time to become an expert in this by dozens of articles. Then why are you spending so many words arguing about it?

Discussing things used to be a good way to gain understanding. You know, back in the day before PC, when people were still willing to have a real discussion.

Besides, I can't stand bullshit and prejudice.

Re: Inside the Mirrortocracy

#196

Post by scott_s »

lilsunnybee wrote: post #24
austinz wrote: post #3

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…

> Sometimes we’ll have a thirty minute interview extend the rest of the day and into the evening. We don’t mandate it, and we don’t ding you if you have other plans. But when it works out organically, it’s a nice thing for everyone and it moves the process along much faster. Yeah we're not going to penalize you if you don't have your schedule completely open. Like if you have kids or commitments or something. It's co…

Like if you have kids or commitments or something. It's cool! But it's also sort of a strong signal that you're just not going to be a good fit here.

You have entered exceedingly dangerous territory, and I don't think you realize it. Morally and legally. What you're essentially saying is, "We want people like us."

Honestly, I'm running into a bit of Poe's Law. I can't tell if what you wrote is serious or satire.

Re: Inside the Mirrortocracy

#197

Post by boomlinde »

opendais wrote: post #120
facepalm wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure if they are desperate enough they will overlook the drinking requirement. Maybe the hiring situation is not that desperate yet. Edit: re "religious" argument: surely you can get some non-alcoholic drink at a bar? Water, if nothing else?

> I'm sure if they are desperate enough they will overlook the drinking requirement. Maybe the hiring situation is not that desperate yet. Right now, IT is a strong labor environment [e.g. Programmers get multiple offers if they look for a job and pick the best/highest one]. If you are so foolish as to make "drinking" a requirement, that means you are reducing the pool and raising the cost of the employee. You are fr…

Capitalism solves the problem? Let's say a company is based on a highly successful concept (say, like Paypal). Couldn't their potential advantage over their competitors in other regards than employment practises offset the cost of only hiring drinkers?

I really don't think that handling this on a "free to do that" basis is practically useful. If you don't feel like excluding non-drinkers is an issue, feel free to entertain that opinion. I just don't think that capitalism is a viable solution.

Re: Inside the Mirrortocracy

#198

Post by scott_s »

facepalm wrote: post #165
dragonwriter wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. A differentially-hostile work environment created by legal requirements of the job, e.g., working alongside people who you disapprove of because the employer is prohibited against discriminating against them to suit you, is not illegal discrimination. > In fact if…

" not requiring drinking isn't discriminating against people who drink" Neither is going to a bar, because you are not obliged to drink alcohol at a bar. Again I think this whole thing is ridiculous. Why shouldn't people allowed to do what they enjoy in their company? What if you quit a job to found a company, precisely because you want a company where colleagues go to a bar together occasionally? Why should you not…

You can found a company where colleagues occasionally go to the bar together - as long as it is not mandatory, either implicitly or explicitly. But things that are a part of your hiring process are different than things that are optional parts of after-hours socializing. You should not be allowed to require such behavior because we, as a society, have decided that our employment should not be contingent on our lifestyle.

Also: bars are places that people go to socialize while drinking. You are not obliged to drink at a bar, but you are expected to. People who do not drink are likely to feel some social pressure about their decision while in a bar. That is not okay for a job interview. I have friends who do not drink. I consider it rude to ask them out to a bar because then we are going to an establishment that is clearly not for them.

Re: Inside the Mirrortocracy

#199

Post by scott_s »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #150
dragonwriter wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wouldn't that depend on the choice of bar? There's a big difference between a nightclub at midnight and a gastropub during lunch time Typically, one does not refer to a gastropub or other restaurant (even one which, as most do and as a gastropub does by definition, includes a bar) as "a bar". When one refers to an institution as "a bar", that generally implies that one is referring to an institution that is solely…

I'm thinking of something that is more half way between, this might be more of a British phenomenon as I think our bar culture is somewhat different to the one in the US.

English pubs are not quite the same as American bars. I wish that we had more pub-style establishments. American bars - even the ones that serve decent food - typically turn into semi-nightclubs after 9 pm.

Re: Inside the Mirrortocracy

#200

Post by scott_s »

scott_s wrote: post #196
lilsunnybee wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sometimes we’ll have a thirty minute interview extend the rest of the day and into the evening. We don’t mandate it, and we don’t ding you if you have other plans. But when it works out organically, it’s a nice thing for everyone and it moves the process along much faster. Yeah we're not going to penalize you if you don't have your schedule completely open. Like if you have kids or commitments or something. It's co…

Like if you have kids or commitments or something. It's cool! But it's also sort of a strong signal that you're just not going to be a good fit here. You have entered exceedingly dangerous territory, and I don't think you realize it. Morally and legally. What you're essentially saying is, "We want people like us." Honestly, I'm running into a bit of Poe's Law. I can't tell if what you wrote is serious or satire.

The more I think about it, the more convinced I am it was satire. So, good work.
Post reply on HN