Hacker News Reader

The obvious explanation would be that the maintainer (who used to work there) hit up colleagues for stories, or because it circulated among Twitter employees for whatever other reason. It's not very likely to imply anything about Twitter's or Google's hiring.

View on HN

This is accurate. I see a lot of my twitter-employee friend network represented here.

(Also, this feels like it even started as a twitter thread.)

It could also be that twitter has a better hiring process with fewer false negatives.

That's possible, sure, but the evidence here doesn't support that conclusion any more than it supports the reverse. When you have a small group of things that clearly weren't chosen at random, the safe bet is that they don't imply anything about the set from which they were selected.

The evidence doesn't support any conclusion really. We are just guessing. I'm merely calling what what A could be in A implies B.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com