alt Hacker News> Would that it were so simple! But are you saying this from your experience hiring for teams that execute well?
I oversimplified it not to stray away from the main topic but actually they need to have very specific features like the willingness to collaborate, the ability to communicate when the time is right, being technically proficient and so on.
> Do you have statistics proving this? Please share data.
Let A be the set of people who like to work remotely and B the set of people who love to do hybrid. (I leave out the set of people who love full RTO because I haven't yet met such a person, even hard-core office lovers admit a day of remote work is doing wonders to them.) Let A1 be the subset of people who would be fit for the job from the set A, and B1 be the subset of people who would be fit for the job from the set B. From the basic properties of real numbers one can infer that A1 + B1 is at least equal to B1.
> Are you honestly saying that in all the interviews you've attended, you never ask and you've never been asked "why do you want to work here?" And if the question was asked the answer had nothing to do with the company's mission?
Actually, they rarely ask it these days. Maybe the hiring folks are tired of this meaningless ritual? I once said I applied by mistake and they still wanted to hire me (I declined the offer as it was a different time zone, I realized this too far in the recruitment process and was quite embarrassed by mistake.)
> Let A1 be the subset of people who would be fit for the job from the set A, and B1 be the subset of people who would be fit for the job from the set B. From the basic properties of real numbers one can infer that A1 + B1 is at least equal to B1.
This is a deeply frustrating response. I asked if you have any data to back up your claims. Recall "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
Instead you give me the kind of thing that people who don't study mathematics think a mathematical proof looks like.
It's certainly not real world empirical data. Your response is worse than useless in this context.
What's even more frustrating is that your "proof" clearly shows that you only recently learnt about real numbers. (Why would you use real numbers for a countable set? Why would real numbers be a useful way of counting discrete humans? How many real numbers are there between any 2 real numbers?)
So you've just learnt about real numbers and you're probably a teenager. Then why are you saying random things to strangers on the internet and pretending to know what you're talking about?
This makes me so sad.