logoalt Hacker News

akurilin • yesterday at 6:39 PM • 1 reply • view on HN

It's interesting that most of us have that story of someone who didn't pattern-match and yet ended up being absolutely stellar. Makes you wonder just how much latent talent is out there not being given the chance for one reason or another. Hope this article reminds people to dig beneath the surface a little more.

And yes, many candidates struggle with performing under the totally unnatural pressure of an interview, so you can cater to them with something like the github project review. Then you end up potentially filtering out people without a rich body of work that can be easily reviewed, which is a trade-off. Actually something I've been meaning to write about, I always say that there's no way to please everybody with an interview funnel. Someone perfectly fine will be filtered out, or turned off, by any of the approaches you choose.

You just need to choose which false negatives you will be ok with.

Replies

godelski • yesterday at 9:14 PM

  | In fact what I would like to see is thousands of computer scientists let loose to do whatever they want. That's what really advances the field.
  - Knuth

  | How do you manage genius? You don’t.
  - Marvin Kelly (Director of Bell Labs)
We have thousands of examples, quotes, and clichés where dark horses completely change the field. In CS we see this over and over so much that it's a trope of any successful startup. I just wonder when we'll notice the pattern. With all the clichés like "curiosity is worth 10 IQ points".

I think, at least for the cutting edge, it's easy to understand why these tropes are true. (IIRC Kelly even discussed it) Experts already know what the problems are and are naturally drawn to fixing them. By focusing on impact or importance all you're doing is taking away time from problem solving. Taking time from allowing people to be creative. If creativity wasn't required we'd have already gotten there.

I'm often left wondering how much we waste by trying to over optimize. How much we hurt progress by trying to attach metrics to things that are unmeasurable.

Honestly, the thing I'm most excited to see from a post scarce world is how humanity changes and progresses. When we then have this freedom to explore and innovate. To let people become experts in what they want. To let experts explore the topics they want, without need for justifying their work and the stress of not being able to put food on the table.

But until then, maybe we should recognize that innovation is so difficult to measure and has so much noise that we shouldn't rely too heavily on what the conventional wisdom says. If conventional wisdom could get us all the innovation and was optimized then startups wouldn't exist as established players could just follow a clear playbook and out innovate before anyone even has a chance. It's weird that we both recognize big established players are too big and set in their ways yet we also look to them as the playbook to follow to succeed at where they fail.

I really think there's a lot of untapped potential out there. So many just waiting to be given a chance