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

We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

danluu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 653 posts

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#481

Post by flamedoge »

gugagore wrote: post #473
flamedoge wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I referred to with 'rules of the language' was the national standard version of the language. Those are publicly well known and promoted by a majority body. I argue that these rules are much easier to learn than rules of dialects.

First of all, in numerous cases, the "national standard" (whatever that means) dialect is not the dialect spoken by the majority. Can you give an example of rules of "standard English" being easier to learn than some rule of non-standard English? Also note that English as far as I know doesn't even have an official codification of its rules and usage: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_language_regulators

I'll argue that Korean spoken in Seoul, South Korea is vastly different from one in Pyong Yang, North Korea, and arguably harder to learn because one can trace some of the phrasing to old way Korean was spoken which is a mix of Chinese-derived words with Korean. This is due to the language having been invented by King Sejong circa 400(?) years ago when most written language was Chinese in Korea. It's harder because you have to trace the origins of these words to Chinese characters and it's not just learning one language anymore--language rules and meanings cross over across regions and boundaries that exist or existed in the past.

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#482

Post by s73ver_ »

austincheney wrote: post #441
beat wrote: post #275

So here's the thing... hiring at larger, growing companies often means weeding through a stack of a hundred resumes, for one or two or five roles. Most of those resumes need to go away. The interview process, for competent candidates, is going to cost you at bare minimum a half hour of one person's time for initial screening. A quality interview is going to take a couple of hours each for a few important people - man…

I don't like resumes as 98% of each is probably bullshit unless the candidate is a truly amazing rockstar with 10+ years of valid experience. As a result any heuristic applied to resumes is just as worthless as most candidates. When I have interviewed in the past I literally stopped reading once I see contact information and save reading it for during the interview. If the contact information is not the first thing o…

I fail to see what's good about your approach. I suppose if your company has a lot of pointless bullshit that doesn't apply to the actual problem, then yeah, you're selecting for people who either are willing or have no other alternative.

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#483

Post by lazyasciiart »

beat wrote: post #435
wolfgke wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Getting someone to look over your stuff and looking for spelling errors sounds like a simple and easy fix doesn’t it? There are a lot of people who don't speak English as native language. I, as a non-native speaker learn about very subtle rules of the English language all the time, where the author often explains that even many native speakers are often not aware of these rules and thus write in their own native wr…

Yes, I pointedly confine my filter to spelling errors, not grammar, out of respect for non-native English speakers (or even native English speakers who grew up with other dialects). English grammar can be terribly difficult, even for well educated native speakers. Spelling, on the other hand, has a consistent reference.

I'm curious, do you expect everyone to use American spelling, or would you also accept British variations like -ise, colour, etc?

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#484

Post by mark-r »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #227
psyc wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Microsoft hired me in 2006 they didn’t even ask about my lack of degree. I’ve also interviewed at Google and Amazon. Amazon didn’t ask either. Google probably asked, but it didn’t disqualify me.

Do you think the difference now is that the market is more saturated with developers since it started to become a little more of a hot-ticket, and carries less of the old 'nerd' stigma? Also, I'm curious about how you managed to even get your foot in the door at such large organizations and not just get swept out in a filter at the gate. I'm assuming of course that such large companies employ some kind of application…

Large companies need a constant supply of new talent, so they develop multiple filters that work in parallel. Being cut by one filter doesn't mean you won't be grabbed by another.

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#485

Post by psyc »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #227
psyc wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Microsoft hired me in 2006 they didn’t even ask about my lack of degree. I’ve also interviewed at Google and Amazon. Amazon didn’t ask either. Google probably asked, but it didn’t disqualify me.

Do you think the difference now is that the market is more saturated with developers since it started to become a little more of a hot-ticket, and carries less of the old 'nerd' stigma? Also, I'm curious about how you managed to even get your foot in the door at such large organizations and not just get swept out in a filter at the gate. I'm assuming of course that such large companies employ some kind of application…

I never perceived there to be any degree filter at the BigCos, or less so than at narrower software companies. In house recruiters from every big5 have contacted me regularly through LinkedIn for as long as I can remember, and still do.

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#486

Post by malvosenior »

s73ver_ wrote: post #393
alskdfji wrote: post #232

This was the most depressing part to me: "Another person I know is in a similar situation because his group won’t talk to people who aren’t already employed." It's a long story, but both my wife and I have most recently been at places, in a small-medium city, that have had huge turnover in the last several years due to mismanagement (her entire unit, except for her, left twice while she was working with them; we've l…

"So if I take time off to watch our child while my wife rebuilds her career, and maybe move to a different career myself, somehow I'm penalized? Pardon my language, but fuck that." Agreed. Anyone who wants to implement some kind of asinine policy like that should instantly be forced to spend the next 6 months unemployed, and then try to find a new job.

I don’t think it’s a policy as much as it is common sense. Unless the OP was producing output during that time (which he doesn’t suggest he would be doing), he _will_ be less attractive to hiring managers. Why would someone want to hire somebody who is letting their skills atrophy when they can hire somebody who’s been growing their skills actively?

There are a lot of candidates out there and to ignore your competition for employment is to do yourself a great disservice.

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#487

Post by lazyasciiart »

flamedoge wrote: post #481
gugagore wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, in numerous cases, the "national standard" (whatever that means) dialect is not the dialect spoken by the majority. Can you give an example of rules of "standard English" being easier to learn than some rule of non-standard English? Also note that English as far as I know doesn't even have an official codification of its rules and usage: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_language_regulators

I'll argue that Korean spoken in Seoul, South Korea is vastly different from one in Pyong Yang, North Korea, and arguably harder to learn because one can trace some of the phrasing to old way Korean was spoken which is a mix of Chinese-derived words with Korean. This is due to the language having been invented by King Sejong circa 400(?) years ago when most written language was Chinese in Korea. It's harder because y…

The language was not "invented" at all, you may be misremembering the invention of the Korean alphabet by Sejong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Korean

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#488

Post by hyperpape »

beat wrote: post #275

So here's the thing... hiring at larger, growing companies often means weeding through a stack of a hundred resumes, for one or two or five roles. Most of those resumes need to go away. The interview process, for competent candidates, is going to cost you at bare minimum a half hour of one person's time for initial screening. A quality interview is going to take a couple of hours each for a few important people - man…

I don't even disagree with this. It's just also an admission that you don't hire the best.

We can argue about whether there are 10x developers or not, but it doesn't matter for this discussion. If you assume that a developer is going to be with you for a year or more, then it starts to be worth a week or more of your (collective) time to improve the expected productivity of the people you hire by 10%. Not 2x, not 10x, just 10%.

If you aren't spending that time, then you're tacitly either admitting that you're not good at accurately assessing talent, or that you think any warm body will do equally well at your job. Either way, I don't think you're really disagreeing with the core of Dan's post.

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#489

Post by user5994461 »

citizens wrote: post #474
austincheney wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like resumes as 98% of each is probably bullshit unless the candidate is a truly amazing rockstar with 10+ years of valid experience. As a result any heuristic applied to resumes is just as worthless as most candidates. When I have interviewed in the past I literally stopped reading once I see contact information and save reading it for during the interview. If the contact information is not the first thing o…

You've mentioned several ways to reduce the number of candidates that you consider for each role, but I don't see how any of it leads to better quality hires.

When you have hundreds of people to interview, the quantity is a huge problem. You can't interview the majority of them.

His question takes away the people who are not interested. It's useful.

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#490

Post by munificent »

ballenf wrote: post #385
einarfd wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I consider it evidence of carelessness - I don't care if you can't spell, but I do care if you don't bother to run it past someone else who can for editing. Getting someone to look over your stuff and looking for spelling errors sounds like a simple and easy fix doesn’t it? But in my experience that doesn't work as well as one would think, prof reading is a lot harder than it looks. After all it's isn't enough to c…

I too have close family members with dyslexia. If they asked whether they'd make good programmers, I'd honestly tell them that their disability would make it very challenging and frustrating. They could still do it, but their passion would have to be enough to drive them to work much harder than their colleagues to achieve the same results. I'd also recommend that they go to whatever lengths necessary to eliminate ty…

I used to work with a friend who has pretty severe dyslexia. As far as I could tell, it was never an impediment. He was phenomenally productive. Aside from the occasional misspelled variable name, you would never have known about his dyslexia.
Post reply on HN