4 ms·
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 fo
by 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 agoThis 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 agoIt could also be that twitter has a better hiring process with fewer false negatives.
- fenomas 8y agoThat'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 agoThe evidence doesn't support any conclusion really. We are just guessing. I'm merely calling what what A could be in A implies B.