undefined | Better HN

0 pointspeyton3y ago0 comments

> I can't find any other place that it comes from other than disappointment from those that didn't or can't pass those interviews.

Oh, the macro is that these companies are oligopolies. About 15–20 years ago one of them realized that poaching entire teams from the others to enter new LOBs was cheaper than competing. So headcount grew.

Outside of strategic hires it doesn’t really matter who they pick up. E.g. LinkedIn isn’t going to go out of biz if they don’t find productive places for their army of level 3.5 software engineers or whatever. LinkedIn doesn’t have any competition.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

vecter3y ago· 2 in thread

I might not be connecting the dots, but I don't see how this is related to the GP's gripe that these interview questions aren't good tools for hiring engineers.

jmalicki3y ago

"If you really think it's suboptimal, then other companies who have "better" interviewing practices should be better at identifying undiscovered talent and hiring them. Better for you if you're hiring in those cases. Let FAANG fail on their own hiring practices."

The GGP is using an argument that if these techniques don't work, then the companies will fail, because that's how capitalism works.

The GP is saying that because these companies are oligopolies, they can do a lot of very inefficient things that don't work and distort the market, yet not fail and not be punished for it, thus that's why we should care.

vecter3y ago

I see, thanks for clarifying that. Makes sense.

Relatedly, I still don't understand why people are upset at these companies' hiring practices.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse