4 ms·

Maybe it's just me but it sure does seem like a lot of these people ended up at Twitter. And I don't see a lot of Google.

lkbm 8y ago
It seems like Google filters hard on whiteboarding, questions and Twitter filters on something at least somewhat orthogonal.
- 4ndrewl 8y ago
  I guess you could argue that using Profitability as a metric as a guide to how succesful the hiring strategy was? I wouldn't, but you could...
  - ThrowMeDown01 8y ago
    Since the major component of Google's profitability is its search business you would have to filter for that. Much of the rest that they do isn't exactly a shiny example for profitability. Also, it's not exactly easy to say who and what exactly contributed to profitability, it is way too complex and environment also plays a role, as well as competitors (if they mess up big time, does that mean you are good?). Sure, an accountant will be able to give you an answer how one individual human or piece of equipment contributed to the result. It will be a different one depending on what you need the number for though (to calculate taxes? to make an investment decision? to allocate production resources?), and it is quite arbitrary.
fenomas 8y ago
The obvious explanation would be that the maintainer (who used to work there) hit up colleagues for stories, or because it circulated among Twitter employees for whatever other reason. It's not very likely to imply anything about Twitter's or Google's hiring.
- egometry 8y ago
  This is accurate. I see a lot of my twitter-employee friend network represented here. (Also, this feels like it even started as a twitter thread.)
- seanmcdirmid 8y ago
  It could also be that twitter has a better hiring process with fewer false negatives.
  - fenomas 8y ago
    That's possible, sure, but the evidence here doesn't support that conclusion any more than it supports the reverse. When you have a small group of things that clearly weren't chosen at random, the safe bet is that they don't imply anything about the set from which they were selected.
    - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
      The evidence doesn't support any conclusion really. We are just guessing. I'm merely calling what what A could be in A implies B.

lkbm 8y ago

It seems like Google filters hard on whiteboarding, questions and Twitter filters on something at least somewhat orthogonal.

4ndrewl 8y ago
I guess you could argue that using Profitability as a metric as a guide to how succesful the hiring strategy was? I wouldn't, but you could...
- ThrowMeDown01 8y ago
  Since the major component of Google's profitability is its search business you would have to filter for that. Much of the rest that they do isn't exactly a shiny example for profitability. Also, it's not exactly easy to say who and what exactly contributed to profitability, it is way too complex and environment also plays a role, as well as competitors (if they mess up big time, does that mean you are good?). Sure, an accountant will be able to give you an answer how one individual human or piece of equipment contributed to the result. It will be a different one depending on what you need the number for though (to calculate taxes? to make an investment decision? to allocate production resources?), and it is quite arbitrary.

fenomas 8y ago

The obvious explanation would be that the maintainer (who used to work there) hit up colleagues for stories, or because it circulated among Twitter employees for whatever other reason. It's not very likely to imply anything about Twitter's or Google's hiring.

egometry 8y ago
This is accurate. I see a lot of my twitter-employee friend network represented here. (Also, this feels like it even started as a twitter thread.)
seanmcdirmid 8y ago
It could also be that twitter has a better hiring process with fewer false negatives.
- fenomas 8y ago
  That's possible, sure, but the evidence here doesn't support that conclusion any more than it supports the reverse. When you have a small group of things that clearly weren't chosen at random, the safe bet is that they don't imply anything about the set from which they were selected.
  - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
    The evidence doesn't support any conclusion really. We are just guessing. I'm merely calling what what A could be in A implies B.