This shouldn't be about me. If I had the same political views as goofy and jj they wouldn't have made it personal.

Every poster in this forum has talent I'm pretty sure or they wouldn't be at least interested in software development. Plenty of "low level" developers that are on the left. Pretty sure goofy and jj would find left leaning "low level" programmers a lot more talented than me.

well, I am probably in that magical zone that he describes where the interviewer will allow for direction and molding so I would happily accept it.

and maybe the egotistical guy that you are describing is not the best person to conduct the interviews or to have such power over the hiring decision.

these guys are looking for every advantage possible. they are heavily researching and testing new ideas for small edges. it seems completely crazy that they will allow for things like the "anti-loop" to occur. would it really be that hard to structure the interview cycle so that candidates are not asked such disparate questions that they are highly unlikely to know both?

and really, shouldnt they match up candidates with questions that overlap both the candidates background and the job requirements?

I am not saying this is super easy, but I would be surprised if a company like google couldnt make some headway. and yet this guy instead just throws his hands up and deems it impossible to even try.

I am aware that people itt have biases against each other based on the politics forum, but my undergrad was in politics, and I view things much more scientificslly and fluidly than most. I don't really ever judge people for their political beliefs.

I said what I said knowing his views on politics are likely considered very wrong with the 2+2 zeitgeist.

It's not a single instance that's the main problem. It's that hiring someone you shouldn't have is different than not hiring people you should.

So it was Adios being snarky with a post that didn't make sense.

Like I said your post was dumb regardless of your beliefs about the dude that was fired.

And of course you're the one that tried to make this political anyway.

It's like that time you claimed I was stalking you in a thread even though I was posting in it first and your first post was a reply to me. Meh.

Victor, you're still not getting the post. Part of that is his writing style I guess.

But at the very least, the fact that he wrote a giant blog post about it means that he cares greatly about the subject.

I never judged ppl for political beliefs either, for a long time at least. even bush and his phony iraq war and bull**** patriot act and all the other deplorable acts of his administration didnt reflect badly on his supporters in my view.

but trump. ya, if I find out someone supports trump then they instantly lose my respect. and even if they merely voted for him, it lowers my view of them.

for that reason, at work, I try hard to avoid any sort of discussion that may even lead to politics or touch on politics peripherally.

When that discussion was happening I was reading it while also ordering a new iMac, and I felt sort of guilty momentarily for buying overpriced computer hardware. "What have I become?" I thought to myself, glancing over at my $500 windows desktop. Then it arrived with that beautiful 5k screen and I immediately decided that I clearly won the argument about it which I did not actually have :P

You'll fit in SF. People in sF judge you hard if you support trump. I find it odd but I guess thats what happens when you live in such a liberal city.

If you don't have a strong opinion on what interviewers should do, not sure what it is that you want people to have to learn. There's no objective body of knowledge on which questions are appropriate for what type of jobs - while we know which types questions are illegal and which types of questions are inappropriate, we don't know if networking questions are better than OS questions or dynamic programming questions are better graph theory questions.

But who decides who's the egotistical one? Who polices the police? Either you empower individual interviewers or have an even more egotistical person who thinks everyone should ask X type of questions enforce a policy made around his own biases. The point of a decentralized process and multiple interviewers is that an average of lots of people's biases is better than one person's bias.

This is a problem for job candidates - not a problem for Google. Google isn't trying to hire everyone who is qualified. Interview anti-loop is also a theoretical concept that merely has a loose existence proof based on the level of selectivity required, not something empirically shown to be relevant. It's also a rhetorical device for Googlers to make their friends who were rejected by Google feel better.

You want to ask disparate questions such that most candidates are unlikely to know both - that's how you select the best ones. The problem isn't that you don't want to ask disparate questions but that for any given candidate, it's possible to find questions that this person will fail on. It's a statistical artifact - you can't know everything or be good at everything, so it's possible you can end up with a bunch of interviewers who happen to hit your weak points. Another thing is that Yegge is overstating this to flatter his audience that surely includes lots of people who are rejected from Google.

why would you find it odd when you consider the actions, words, and mentality of trump and many of his followers? I mean, a primary piece of their stated ideology is to oppose liberals and all of their policies and ideas. so why wouldnt liberals shun these ppl.

? You seem like a very good programmer, I've never said anything about your talent. Skimming above discussion I don't think jj did either. And there are people who have the same political views as me and jj that make terrible political posts also.

I understand the sentiment but basically if I thought less of anyone who voted for Trump, I'd be a pretty lonely person. I live on the outskirts of Austin, which, sure is a liberal bastion in a very red state, but, most of my neighbors probably voted for Trump. Most of my family voted for Trump. Probably most of the suburban town I live in voted for him.

They "support" him to varying degrees. Many of the people above didn't "vote for Trump", they "voted for the republican party." Some of them regret it and dislike him intensely. Many have resolved their cognitive dissonance by accepting it. It can be complicated.

For the most part, they are normal good people. Such is life in a system of government like ours (where voting is extremely dominated by 2 parties)

You’re not reading enough of his posts

I don't have a problem with political beliefs that are based in moral/ethical beliefs. So if someone thinks abortion is wrong, that's cool. If someone thinks being gay is wrong, that's cool. If someone thinks healthcare isn't a fundamental right, that's cool. If someone thinks affirmative action is necessary, that's cool. If someone thinks wealth inequality is bad, that's cool.

My issue is when people want me to treat their logical or factual errors the same way. Or when people think that they're victims because the Government isn't imposing their views on everyone else. Those are the things I have little use for.

I have a hard time with seeing how people that make frequent logical errors make good programmers - that's totally outside of any political ideology. There's at least one liberal poster here that I feel the same way about (but I'm not going to name names because he's not in this discussion).

But it was sort of a stupid point I made about Adios because clearly people can be illogical in all sorts of different ways and areas.

Mathematical type logic and political type logic really just are not the same thing at all. I have personally met a few great mathematicians who couldn't frame a coherent political position at all.

You're kind of espousing the opposite of engineer's disease - you expect people who are good engineers/programmers/mathematicians to also be good at other kinds of arguments.

Tribalism, fear, territorialism (and much more) all trump logic and reason in the human brain. That's just how we're wired.

The hills you choose to die say just as much if not more than the logic you use in your arguments. Zero logic goes into picking which arguments are important to you. By definition this is emotion-based. "I feel this is an important topic."

If an argument doesn't have a strong emotional pull to either side (like how to code), then we're much more likely to get it right.

i assume you're drawing a bright line between their personal belief, and the real-world consequences of those beliefs? the problem is that's not realistic. if people truly believe being gay is wrong, the majority of them will, at best, be supporters of legislation that takes away the rights of gay people, and, at worst, perpetrate violence against gay people.

is it possible to believe being gay is wrong and also fully support gay rights? i suppose, but i believe such people are a minority of those who believe being gay is wrong.

so, in practice, it's very much not cool.

i agree with the point you're making, and it's important, but i'd still say that if you grabbed two random people from the population, and told me that one was an accomplished mathematician, with no further information about either one, i'd say the mathematician is vastly more likely to be an effective political debater than the random person. which ofc doesn't contradict your point.

I disagree with this conclusion. I think its quite possible for people to believe both:

1. Homosexuality is morally wrong.
2. Homosexuality is a personal issue that shouldn't be punished by the Government.

I think there are a large number of people that think pre-marital sex is wrong. And yet, for some reason, we don't have the same bull**** around oppressing people for it. Nor is there as big of an outcry about common law marriage and benefits/rights for people in common-law relationships.

So I definitely think its possible for people to belief that being gay is morally wrong and none of the business of the Government.

Well, yeah. In practice it's almost always very much not cool. But I wanted to point out that I don't have a problem with the actual moral belief.

jj,

as i said, yes, it's possible. but it just doesn't play out like that very often.

sure, sometimes you run into a die-hard libertarian christian whose belief in personal freedom trumps his religious beliefs against homosexuality, or other outliers like that.

but even then, you have to ask in what sense they believe it's wrong, when they don't believe there should be any consequences for that wrongness. Meaning, they think gay people should be able to marry, adopt children, and so on, but they still think it's morally wrong. It becomes in some sense an empty belief.

They believe it's morally wrong, but for all practical purposes they act as if it were not wrong.

You might say, well, they think the person's soul will burn in hell. And that they should try to help the person if they can. Okay, but what does that mean? Probably it means they might say something to the person in the right circumstance. But even there, even in this minor well-intentioned gesture, you have something that may (rightfully) feel like a kind of discrimination to the gay person.

As a pure philosophical issue, I'd argue it's impossible to separate action from meaningful belief.

right this is why I desperately avoid the topic with my work colleagues.

despite being in northeast ohio, and by its nature upper middle class, I would imagine the large majority at my work did not vote trump or if they did, greatly regret it. ofc I could be way wrong about the regret part. I just hope they do and if they do regret it, then I can reengage my respect. see my disgust at the mere voters is waning.

but anyone that still supports him and espouses his policies and positions loses all respect.

as for the bolded well, I disagree that those are good people. yes, I understand the implications of that. its proly not worth discussing as I have gone round and round on these forums about that topic.

GM, I really feel like premarital sex / living together without marriage is a good example of how lots of people think something is morally wrong but are accepting of it in others and don't believe there should be any consequences for that wrongness.

I think some people are already there for homosexuality. Maybe it's more common in Canada where we don't have as many (or as vocal) ultra religious people.

Edit: Anyway, this isn't a hill i need to die on. I think we're on the same page just differ in how many people we think exist in this group.