5 ms·

So you made a biased decision about a candidate based on where they worked rather than evaluate them on their ability to perform in the role relative to other c

So you made a biased decision about a candidate based on where they worked rather than evaluate them on their ability to perform in the role relative to other candidates?

jeffbee 6y ago
No, I evaluated their lack of a functioning moral framework to conclude they couldn't possibly perform a function in my organization because ethics are much more important than the ability to traverse directed graphs in pseudo-code on whiteboards. If a candidate told me they got fired for intentionally sabotaging Palantir's production operations, that would neutralize the issue. So far haven't met that person.
- esoterica 6y ago
  You seem very confident they won’t find anything morally objectionable with your company and decide to sabotage your operations.
  - pmoriarty 6y ago
    If it's so difficult to discern a difference between your company and Palantir, you've got a problem.
    - esoterica 6y ago
      You seem very convinced that everyone shares the same moral framework you do. Just because you find your company’s work unobjectionable doesn’t mean everyone else does. I mean, there are Unabomber types out there who think all tech is inherently bad, how do you know the person you are hiring isn’t or won’t turn into one of those people?
      - pmoriarty 6y ago
        Clearly not everyone in tech shares my moral framework, or the internet wouldn't be infested with ads, spyware, and malware, thanks to these "prestigious" companies.
      - jeffbee 6y ago
        You’re not wrong, I also think carefully about whether candidates show signs of being acutely deranged privacy freaks, sovereign citizens, gold bugs, and a bunch of other modern-day mental illnesses. Sad but that’s how it goes these days. Maybe I should just ask for their HN handles?
- hhmc 6y ago
  Why bother interviewing them at all?
Gibbon1 6y ago
Anyone that worked at Palantir is potentially a mole.
- friendlybus 6y ago
  How is that different to microsoft logging your keystrokes or google reading your email? Having to deal with old fashioned employee espionage seems quaint.
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    Most people can tell the difference between an activity that provides a clear benefit, like classifying my emails, and one that provides no personal benefit, such as selling mass surveillance as a service to the highest bidder. If you can’t tell the difference than your ethical framework isn’t serving you.
    - friendlybus 6y ago
      I don't know what you mean. Snowden docs showed google moving domestic US data to the UK and back again so the data is considered foreign and thus readable by spy agencies. The ability for google to legally and materially read my emails transcends law, classifying emails and my knowledge. Ethics doesnt even start when its done outside society. Advertising is second order financial gain derived from their absolute power over retained information. There's a bigger picture.

So you made a biased decision about a candidate based on where they worked rather than evaluate them on their ability to perform in the role relative to other candidates?

jeffbee 6y ago

No, I evaluated their lack of a functioning moral framework to conclude they couldn't possibly perform a function in my organization because ethics are much more important than the ability to traverse directed graphs in pseudo-code on whiteboards. If a candidate told me they got fired for intentionally sabotaging Palantir's production operations, that would neutralize the issue. So far haven't met that person.

esoterica 6y ago
You seem very confident they won’t find anything morally objectionable with your company and decide to sabotage your operations.
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  If it's so difficult to discern a difference between your company and Palantir, you've got a problem.
  - esoterica 6y ago
    You seem very convinced that everyone shares the same moral framework you do. Just because you find your company’s work unobjectionable doesn’t mean everyone else does. I mean, there are Unabomber types out there who think all tech is inherently bad, how do you know the person you are hiring isn’t or won’t turn into one of those people?
    - pmoriarty 6y ago
      Clearly not everyone in tech shares my moral framework, or the internet wouldn't be infested with ads, spyware, and malware, thanks to these "prestigious" companies.
    - jeffbee 6y ago
      You’re not wrong, I also think carefully about whether candidates show signs of being acutely deranged privacy freaks, sovereign citizens, gold bugs, and a bunch of other modern-day mental illnesses. Sad but that’s how it goes these days. Maybe I should just ask for their HN handles?
hhmc 6y ago
Why bother interviewing them at all?

Gibbon1 6y ago

Anyone that worked at Palantir is potentially a mole.

friendlybus 6y ago
How is that different to microsoft logging your keystrokes or google reading your email? Having to deal with old fashioned employee espionage seems quaint.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  Most people can tell the difference between an activity that provides a clear benefit, like classifying my emails, and one that provides no personal benefit, such as selling mass surveillance as a service to the highest bidder. If you can’t tell the difference than your ethical framework isn’t serving you.
  - friendlybus 6y ago
    I don't know what you mean. Snowden docs showed google moving domestic US data to the UK and back again so the data is considered foreign and thus readable by spy agencies. The ability for google to legally and materially read my emails transcends law, classifying emails and my knowledge. Ethics doesnt even start when its done outside society. Advertising is second order financial gain derived from their absolute power over retained information. There's a bigger picture.