3 ms·
This analogy is correct, except ... you're not Robert De Niro, and neither is almost any programmer in the valley. Just like almost no actor is Robert De Niro,
by jblow 11y ago
This analogy is correct, except ... you're not Robert De Niro, and neither is almost any programmer in the valley. Just like almost no actor is Robert De Niro, and most actors are lucky to even be able to audition for commercials.
- p4wnc6 11y agoYour company is not Robert De Niro either! And, to boot, you don't have to be way up at the level of a Robert De Niro to be an offer-only actor. Basically, anyone with a decent and verifiable acting record is offer only. It's actually pretty common. And some actors are offer-only for some kinds of work, such as voice-over work if that's what they're known for, but not for feature films. Anyway, I think your reply totally misses the point. The companies who are so obsessed with needing to weed out the bottom 60% are themselves well in the bottom 60% of employers. What gives them the audacity to claim that certain developers are too low skilled, if the company itself is not any good? A good developer is going to see that and immediately walk away. Unless the company is already verifiably a great place to work with great technical prowess, then their obsession with getting rid of "garbage" programmers makes them seem extremely dysfunctional. (Just look at how people here on HN are speaking about other developers -- so now you're "garbage" if you're in the bottom 60%, even though that still places you well into the top 5% of humanity in terms of technological skills and quantitative thinking. It's absurd!)