3 ms·
I'm four paragraphs in, and I don't want to get too hung up on grammatical errors, but it's making it hard to follow along on what point they are trying to make
by neogodless 10y ago
I'm four paragraphs in, and I don't want to get too hung up on grammatical errors, but it's making it hard to follow along on what point they are trying to make.
> and was won against with teams spending over $100 million
What does that mean? They spent less on their teams, and they lost? So they should spend more!
> Once upon a time the ambitions of your company were exceeding the throughput capacity of your development teams. This is the ultimate goal of hiring...
This sentence ends with the ultimate goal, but "this" seems to be referring to the previous sentence, when it really isn't.
> If ambition growth constant
I'm guessing they mean "is" constant?
- mediocrejoker 10y agoI am a native English speaker and I had a hard time following the point as well. I surmised from the title that the thesis was going to be "x number of decent developers who work together well can produce a product better/faster/cheaper than x great developers who don't get along" I think a bit of proof reading might make it easier to follow the argument in this article.
- bdg 10y agoI had hoped to convince people that since hiring is about improving team throughput there may be better ways to do that besides simply saying "hire the best".
- bdg 10y agoThanks for spotting those problems. I've updated the post. I've debated hiring a proof reader and may do that now as I passed this around my circle of friends before publishing.