4 ms·
That’s an uncharitable interpretation. But if that is what it ends up meaning then i do agree, that’s bigotry. A more charitable interpretation might mean “the
by lurking_swe 2y ago
That’s an uncharitable interpretation. But if that is what it ends up meaning then i do agree, that’s bigotry.
A more charitable interpretation might mean “the candidate is able to clearly explain (through some medium: orally, typing, etc) how their code works, and why they picked that solution. They were also able to correctly answer follow up questions”. If _that_ is what is meant, then that’s not bigotry IMO.
- ljm 2y agoI wouldn't say uncharitable, just that the best-intentioned version is pretty naïve, especially in the current political climate where every effort to bring that kind of inclusivity and open-mindedness to the table is being actively regressed. For everyone here who appreciates the effort to remove unconscious bias from these decisions as much as possible, because they genuinely want to find the most capable person for the job regardless of their personal preferences, there's still a whole world out there where that bias is not only desirable but celebrated.