Oxide computer 3D rack guided tour

Post by jaggederest » Thu, Jun 25, 2026, 8:14 PM UTC

dijit wrote: post #56

jaggederest wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thousands of applicants reaching the substantial work stage is a failure of the systems thinking you're talking about. Hundreds of resumes nearly always gets narrowed down to perhaps a dozen or two at most at the screening stage. And I would make it very clear that putting in more than 30 minutes of work, timed, is a disqualifier, and I would sleep well at night clearing all those people out of the queue.

Hundreds of good applicants can’t be whittled down to a dozen without being very picky about things in the resume which may just be a poor representation. You will bias heavily along some kind of axis, preferred previous employers or location, age, etc. You add a lot of bias into the system by trying to further scrutinise otherwise meaningfully qualified people on paper.

Post by dijit » Thu, Jun 25, 2026, 8:17 PM UTC

jaggederest wrote: post #61

dijit wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hundreds of good applicants can’t be whittled down to a dozen without being very picky about things in the resume which may just be a poor representation. You will bias heavily along some kind of axis, preferred previous employers or location, age, etc. You add a lot of bias into the system by trying to further scrutinise otherwise meaningfully qualified people on paper.

Once again, you're misunderstanding the goal of the system if you think that it's necessary to deliberately whittle down hundreds of good applicants through careful process to get a great hire. Hint: you don't even need to evaluate most candidates at all. Random sampling is sufficient and provably bias free.

Post by jaggederest » Thu, Jun 25, 2026, 8:19 PM UTC

dijit wrote: post #63

jaggederest wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once again, you're misunderstanding the goal of the system if you think that it's necessary to deliberately whittle down hundreds of good applicants through careful process to get a great hire. Hint: you don't even need to evaluate most candidates at all. Random sampling is sufficient and provably bias free.

Reminds me of something I heard once. > Whenever I get a stack of resumes, I throw half of them in the trash > I sure don't want unlucky people on my team. What do you send them as a response "sorry, we're going ahead with other applicants" - "you have not been selected this time" -- what happens if you start needing to dig through that pool of now rejected candidates? Peak humanity.

Post by mrcwinn » Thu, Jun 25, 2026, 8:23 PM UTC

bcantrill wrote: post #57

thraway3837 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a gentle reminder that a company may portray itself as cool to customers, but is not cool to their own current or future employees. Their interview process was shady. There was a post here about 1-2 years ago that was a link to their interview process and how open and transparent they were. The post itself was from an employee and a fellow commenter who was gaslighting folks was also an employee. Several folks c…

I'm not sure what "mess" you're referring to -- that we have a writing-intensive hiring process? That we get a lot of applicants? That we therefore end up rejecting a bunch of people? That we read application materials thoroughly? That we don't provide specific feedback on individual applicants (even though we explicitly state that/why we don't)? To state clearly what I feel we have said many times: Yes, it's hard to…

Post by piker » Thu, Jun 25, 2026, 8:25 PM UTC

dcre wrote: post #25

Source code here :) https://github.com/oxidecomputer/rack-explorer