> I've hired hundreds of people and this is just not true. A first impression matters a bit, sure - but it has hardly any effect on the decision.
The thing about confirmation biases are that they are at the subconscious level and you likely wouldn't be able to detect them. It's possible that you have an impartial and immune to confirmation bias interview process, but it's also possible that you are indeed deciding (skewing) most of your interviews in the first several seconds.
> Hiring is literally the most important job a manager has in any fast growing company. It should be taken very seriously and systematically
I agree. Which is why, if it is found that hiring committees are more effective, and your company isn't using them, then are you taking them seriously? The same with bonuses and promotions. These should not be decided by a single person (manager).
Schedule it right before lunch and finish early. The interviewer will have a positive imprint of you in their lizard brain since you gave them earlier access to their food. Plus your interview will be followed up with the dopamine and please of their meal/break, which might boost their memory of you as well.
An interview is decided in the first several seconds. First impressions are a real thing. Most interviewers will decide based on how you look, act, and talk whether you are going to pass the interview, and they will confirmation bias you into their predetermined decision. Of course with an amazing interview performance you can switch a predetermined no into a yes, and with a very poor interview you can turn a predetermined yes into a no. Why do you think the first question most interviewers ask is something vague and useless like "tell me about yourself"? That question is the real interview.
There is also the reality that when companies need to fill a role, and when first start interviewing they will set the bar way too high and reject some perfectly qualified candidates. After the interview process has dragged on for some time they will eventually decide that enough is enough and will hire the next candidate that shows basic competence (or just hire someone's friend).
BTW, one solution to this I recall being suggested by Eric Schmidt is to use a hiring committee among other things
"According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, bullshit is an informal vulgar term which means ‘to talk nonsense, especially with the intent of misleading or deceiving’. The Oxford English Dictionary defines bullshit as ‘to talk nonsense or rubbish’ and ‘to bluff one’s way through something by talking nonsense’"
And the word bluff is a more apt definition for these situations. It is essentially a bluff like in poker. Where the situation is "I might not know what I'm talking about because I'm using vague obfuscated language, but calling me out on it might point out that I don't know what I'm talking about, or it might make you look like you just didn't understand" especially if the audience in also uninformed it can be spun either way
Yes I can see your point. Why wait for a single point of day to bring up any issues or share information? Just do it immediately. We have tools to enable this (slack, teams, email, etc.). But, I do see the point of a daily sync up for team building, especially for remote teams.
Not sure about that. I'm not familiar with Apple's DRI concept. But it sounds like there could be a DRI for the tech and a DRI for the business side of things. If not you would probably want the tech role to be the DRI and pull the info from the business/product expert. The alternative would be to have the business/product expert be the DRI and maybe take on a project manager type role. There is also the possibility that someone does do both roles and is super efficient, or just works 100+ hours per week. But in reality my guess is they end up becoming the business/product expert and delegating the tech lead to someone else
For a software project, you need 2 main people to run it effectively:
- a tech lead who is intimately familiar with the code being written, who keeps the code design/architecture on the right path, and oversees all the work being done. This person can make great strategic decisions about how to schedule the work to find opportunities to group common work together, divide the work so that people are not working on top of each other, and make decisions taking in the long term health of the codebase and short term delivery pressures.
- a business/product expert. This person prevents the tech lead from being in endless meetings. They sit down and figure out the requirements for the product/project. The clearly communicate these requirements in documents condensing the endless meetings into a coherent clear vision for the product with the long term vision and short term priorities being made clear. The tech lead uses this condensed information to plan the software development.
You cannot have one person do both of these things. The tech lead cannot be in endless meetings and keep the needed level of intimacy with the codebase and properly direct the work being done. The business/product expert needs to be an expert communicator, to make that interface between the tech lead and business/product requirements effective. They need to be able to ask the right questions to get the information about what needs to be built, and then clearly paint that vision to the tech lead. The business/product expert does not create tickets of work to be done! They just communicate the vision. The tech lead breaks the work down strategically.
The economist and non fiction books. You will learn more about the world by reading about, rhetoric, linguistics, cognition, psychology, and history than you will from news, which is usually extremely transient and not important a few months after.
> Public health resources are limited. Unnecessary Covid hospitalizations cause immense opportunity cost in the form of crowding out care and driving costs. Which in many cases other sick people and the public will have to carry.
We have already decided as a society that individual choice outranks the cost to the health system. See obesity, smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, workaholic culture with very limited vacation days, etc
Zoom out. Look at the performance on a larger scale. Are you making the same claims about stock options? They can plunge much more than 30% in a day, but is there no value in them? Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are still in their infancy. Compare to other assets in their infancy. This might not be a great comparison but think about real estate. In it's infancy raiders or militaries could wipe out the value of your real estate overnight. Now it's relatively very stable. Why? Because we made it that way over time. Just because an asset is currently volatile does not mean it has no value.
I'm not an expert on this, but your position that bitcoin has no value is likely shortsighted and misguided. The big one that I see is decentralization. Bitcoin itself might not make it into the future of cryptocurrencies, but the possibility to democratize money and finance is huge. Take away the banks, money printers, middlemen, and give that power to the individual. It's not obvious now what the value of crypto will be but I would not discount the huge potential. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gipL_CEw-fk
Yes, it's not a perfect comparison... But if you were to ask someone who regularly drives (or is driven in) A Bentley whether a Toyota RAV4 is crap they will probably say yes. Why? Because what's important to them is the luxury, and the bells and whistles of their Bentley. Compare this to software where they largely have the same "features", but one platform is easier to use than the other. Is the software that is easier to use "luxury software"?
I've had some realizations recently around this. The quality of the software is in my opinion not a huge factor for the success of the company. Look at car companies like Ford, Toyota, VW. Compared to a Ferrari, Porsche, Bentley they are crap, but yet they are still relatively successful companies in their space. Software is sold to managers. How they make their purchasing decisions is the biggest factor, which comes down to how good the salesperson they interact with is, and their decision making framework. Even if you could make a better platform than service now, you still probably couldn't convince the decision maker to use your software instead. Things like how much they trust the company will be around long term, the support offered, the list of "features", personal relationships are usually more important. A company is more than just the overall relative quality of the product.
Documentation can be implicitly managed thorough writing clear, slightly verbose code with good comments, as well as clearly described test cases. It can also live in the project management tools if used effectively. With a good software development process you can have a historical record of the background, requirements, discussions around that feature/component, and how it was developed
The whole world could live in Texas. It's a failure of the people in leadership positions and who control the resources to create a game where everyone can find a fulfilling role to play. Instead its rent seeking and actively blocking the game from changing because that would risk their wealth.
This question is probably better answered in hindsight. It's probably easier to look back and see who was the top insightful thinkers of their era throughout history. Some of the top thinkers of today might be having their ideas dismissed and will be found out later to have just been ahead of the time. But to take a guess I would say people like obviously Albert Einstein, Elon Musk, Vaclav Smil, Stephen Hawking, maybe people like JRR Tolkien, George Orwell, Jordan Peterson (before his chemical lobotomy), Tony Robbins purely from fame and attention. There's probably people who are much more insightful thinkers that no one has even heard of. Heck it could be someone totally unknown who just reads books and ponders things all the time.
Reverse osmosis is the next goldmine opportunity. Every home will likely need one, or maybe there will be neighbourhood nodes. It's even good for getting clean drinking water from salt water.
Yes, because they want you to pay for a monthly or yearly subscription and you just want to read one article and maybe never come back to their site. But if I can do a 1-click "pay 1/2 cent" to read the rest of the article that would be totally fair
Nothing is stopping the payment provider from taking a percentage. I pay 0.5 cents for an article and service provider takes 0.1 cents. Still $4 RPM for the news site after a 20% fee!
Yes, and as a 3rd party service would be great too. I can login with Facebook, Google, etc. It would be great if I can just pay 1/2 cent to read 1 article vs signing up for monthly or yearly subscriptions. And I can choose pay with service a, service b or service c. They should all adhere to a single standard so any new service can just plug into it. Why should I have to choose only between ads or some big monthly/yearly subscription?
I guess there would need to be a 3rd party or even in house token system where you buy something like 1000 token for a dollar. And you can spend x tokens to view an article. Online advertising like Google ads is essentially doing this for ad views/clicks