4 ms·

Yeah, that's definitely not true. You'll know when you interview them and they have extensive contributions to open source, an active GitHub or GitLab account,

Yeah, that's definitely not true. You'll know when you interview them and they have extensive contributions to open source, an active GitHub or GitLab account, can show you things they're proud of having made in their spare time, can talk at length about technologies and implementation details none of your other candidates can, can show you their participation in mailing lists, etc. There are a billion obvious signals compared to the people who clock in at 8 AM, sign out at 5 PM, and argue with your teammates about problems that entire swaths of engineers consider rudimentary: understanding how to write patches in readable ways, not screwing up git logs, not submitting PRs 10k SLOC long with no explanation as to how the automated output was created for replication and verification. There are obvious clowns in the industry, and people who really love doing this stuff, and you can figure out who they are in a 5 minute conversation. It really insults people when you tell them this, because yes, there are absolutely people that work harder and longer than you because they want to and enjoy it--they don't just go home and watch Netflix.

hotdogscout 3y ago
And a lot of times companies won't hire these passionate people.
- andrewmcwatters 3y ago
  They don't even know who they are because B-players only hire other B-players.
  - pyb 3y ago
    They know who these A players are but are afraid to hire them.
soulbadguy 3y ago
This is in my opinion very wrong, you will end up just selecting for a sub population which might or might have the qualities you are looking for. You seem to be confusing volume of work and passion for skill. Some of the best engineers i know will are very diligent about work life balance (i guess you call that clock in/sign out), do not have publicly visible git hub because in their spare time they are either with their families/communities or enjoying other non tech related hobbies. A good programmer (from an employer perspective) is first and foremost a professional, passion and loving doing stuff is good but can only get so so far. I know a lot of the passionate programmer who basically suck. > There are obvious clowns in the industry Agree, and the worst seem to be the one thinking they have this magical/predictive ability to discern talent based on their limited life experience.
- andrewmcwatters 3y ago
  People who do more will, by definition, have more experience than those who do less. The engineers who spend their time reading and working on problems because they want to, creating larger volumes of work than those who only work an 8-to-5 job will generally always have a larger breadth and depth of experience. Saying the inverse is true is highly unlikely over large populations of individuals across any field, not just software development. You're telling me that you think musicians who are "very diligent" and practice less can be "some of the best" you'll ever have exposure to compared to those who are working in music all the time, just because they like it? It's a delusional concept. If you want to be good at anything in life, you will end up spending more time than other cohorts in any given discipline. But for some reason in tech, people like to believe that's not true because "work life balance." Did it ever dawn on you that some people just like to write all the time? Or produce music all the time? Or paint? Or sing? Or act? "Very diligent" people doing less than "very diligent" people doing more will generally always have less experience and skill. There's nothing meaningful to argue here. Some people delude themselves into thinking it's sacrifice and that some people have to give up "work life balance": The reality is that there are populations of people across all sorts of discipline where giving up more time doing X, Y or Z isn't sacrifice, it's because people genuinely enjoy doing more than others, spending time becoming better than others, and producing more: And yet, that scares people, and people like to deny that it's true instead of acknowledging their own mediocrity.
  - baby_souffle 3y ago
    > People who do more will, by definition, have more experience than those who do less. You're assuming skill rises meaningfully with just volume of experience. Who's a more skilled driver? The plumber that drives his van around to jobs all day and does about 1K miles/month or the guy that mostly rides his bike except for weekends when he's taking a defensive drivers course or going to a track day? I'd bet $$$ that the plumber spends a lot of time checked out / in zombie mode on the freeway between jobs and the motor-sports enthusiast is hyper diligent when driving. > Saying the inverse is true is highly unlikely over large populations of individuals across any field, not just software development. Perhaps, but this is - again - because you're missing the point; meaningful advancement in skill comes from experience gained while attempting something an individual is new to/uncertain/uncomfortable with and not the same thing that the individual has done a thousand times before. > You're telling me that you think musicians who are "very diligent" and practice less can be "some of the best" you'll ever have exposure to compared to those who are working in music all the time, just because they like it? Yes. A simple counterfactual: not all musicians that practice 18 hours a day become successful. There's a lot of work in being the best, absolutely. But some people have some fantastic genetics/general-upbringing/predisposition to leverage. Same thing with sports. There are comedians that you've never heard of that spend more time writing jokes than world-famous comedians do. > Did it ever dawn on you that some people just like to write all the time? Or produce music all the time? Or paint? Or sing? Or act? Absolutely, but the people that do $thing all the time _and get better at it_ are the people that are constantly looking to $difficulty++ on $thing. I love reading and I'm always getting better at it because I don't stick with the same language/length/difficulty level all the time :).
saagarjha 3y ago
Yeah, that describes me! I’m still insulted by this, because I have worked with plenty of people who basically do not exist on the internet but are far smarter than I will ever be. You’re wrong, plain and simple.

hotdogscout 3y ago

And a lot of times companies won't hire these passionate people.

andrewmcwatters 3y ago
They don't even know who they are because B-players only hire other B-players.
- pyb 3y ago
  They know who these A players are but are afraid to hire them.

soulbadguy 3y ago

This is in my opinion very wrong, you will end up just selecting for a sub population which might or might have the qualities you are looking for. You seem to be confusing volume of work and passion for skill. Some of the best engineers i know will are very diligent about work life balance (i guess you call that clock in/sign out), do not have publicly visible git hub because in their spare time they are either with their families/communities or enjoying other non tech related hobbies. A good programmer (from an employer perspective) is first and foremost a professional, passion and loving doing stuff is good but can only get so so far. I know a lot of the passionate programmer who basically suck. > There are obvious clowns in the industry Agree, and the worst seem to be the one thinking they have this magical/predictive ability to discern talent based on their limited life experience.

andrewmcwatters 3y ago
People who do more will, by definition, have more experience than those who do less. The engineers who spend their time reading and working on problems because they want to, creating larger volumes of work than those who only work an 8-to-5 job will generally always have a larger breadth and depth of experience. Saying the inverse is true is highly unlikely over large populations of individuals across any field, not just software development. You're telling me that you think musicians who are "very diligent" and practice less can be "some of the best" you'll ever have exposure to compared to those who are working in music all the time, just because they like it? It's a delusional concept. If you want to be good at anything in life, you will end up spending more time than other cohorts in any given discipline. But for some reason in tech, people like to believe that's not true because "work life balance." Did it ever dawn on you that some people just like to write all the time? Or produce music all the time? Or paint? Or sing? Or act? "Very diligent" people doing less than "very diligent" people doing more will generally always have less experience and skill. There's nothing meaningful to argue here. Some people delude themselves into thinking it's sacrifice and that some people have to give up "work life balance": The reality is that there are populations of people across all sorts of discipline where giving up more time doing X, Y or Z isn't sacrifice, it's because people genuinely enjoy doing more than others, spending time becoming better than others, and producing more: And yet, that scares people, and people like to deny that it's true instead of acknowledging their own mediocrity.
- baby_souffle 3y ago
  > People who do more will, by definition, have more experience than those who do less. You're assuming skill rises meaningfully with just volume of experience. Who's a more skilled driver? The plumber that drives his van around to jobs all day and does about 1K miles/month or the guy that mostly rides his bike except for weekends when he's taking a defensive drivers course or going to a track day? I'd bet $$$ that the plumber spends a lot of time checked out / in zombie mode on the freeway between jobs and the motor-sports enthusiast is hyper diligent when driving. > Saying the inverse is true is highly unlikely over large populations of individuals across any field, not just software development. Perhaps, but this is - again - because you're missing the point; meaningful advancement in skill comes from experience gained while attempting something an individual is new to/uncertain/uncomfortable with and not the same thing that the individual has done a thousand times before. > You're telling me that you think musicians who are "very diligent" and practice less can be "some of the best" you'll ever have exposure to compared to those who are working in music all the time, just because they like it? Yes. A simple counterfactual: not all musicians that practice 18 hours a day become successful. There's a lot of work in being the best, absolutely. But some people have some fantastic genetics/general-upbringing/predisposition to leverage. Same thing with sports. There are comedians that you've never heard of that spend more time writing jokes than world-famous comedians do. > Did it ever dawn on you that some people just like to write all the time? Or produce music all the time? Or paint? Or sing? Or act? Absolutely, but the people that do $thing all the time _and get better at it_ are the people that are constantly looking to $difficulty++ on $thing. I love reading and I'm always getting better at it because I don't stick with the same language/length/difficulty level all the time :).

saagarjha 3y ago

Yeah, that describes me! I’m still insulted by this, because I have worked with plenty of people who basically do not exist on the internet but are far smarter than I will ever be. You’re wrong, plain and simple.