Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | marcinzm's comments login

> Unlike airline pilots (or I'm certain many other professions), every company in the valley insists on re-interviewing a candidate in their own custom and unique way, instead of trusting some sort of an industry-wide certificate only achievable through a standardized test. Wonder if this will ever be solved.

The airplane pilot interview process on top of the standardized government certifications includes:

- On-line application (resume and cover letter)

- On-line Psychometric/Aptitude testing (sometimes this is hands-on, on site for some airlines)

- Video Interview, SKYPE or Telephone interview

- Assessment Day (includes: Technical Questions / Panel Behavioral Interview / Scenario Based Questions / Flight Planning Exercise and sometimes a Clinical Assessment)

- Sim Test

- Referee Check

- Medical Check

The exact details differ by airline and I'm assuming the risk profile of the cargo (ie: passengers or not).

Gosh, not so different from software engineers, is it? Except you also need to do a bunch of bureaucratic certifications on top of that.


Not to mention all of the licensing, regulations, and formalized training hours that you have to put in just to reach that point. It’s all substantially harder than studying LeetCode for a short slice of your life.

It’s amazing how often I hear about how easy interviews are in other professions, according to engineers who dislike coding interviews.

Then you look into those other professions and it turns out changing jobs is actually a lot harder than the internet comments would lead you to think.


It's completely different from software engineering interviews. The process you described for airline pilots gets to the actual qualifications for the job. Whereas for software engineers, literally no one needs to reverse a binary tree yet they base the decision on in large part on this sort of question. Ideally, the BS would be encapsulated in a certification so that interviews can focus on the real useful stuff.

So needing to get yearly re-certifications in Leetcode questions is viewed as preferably by you than having to only study them for interviews? And spending 10+ hours on coding exercises, un-paid, per job is also seen as preferably by you to the current status on top of the yearly Leetcode certification? On top of a full panel of behavioral interviews? Plus needing to take an IQ style assessment online before each job (see the second item on my list)?

I'll take having to study Leetcode every few years over all of that any day of the week.


Being stuck one the side of a pitch black road because your eye glass batteries run out or you dropped them.

At the bottom of the rate curve a few years ago a 30 year fixed rate was 2.8%, a 5/1 adjustable rate was 2.5%, and a 15 year fixed was 2.1%.

As I understand it, the Canada housing market is significantly more broken than the US one overall:

https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2023/09/the-u-s-housing-mar...

Also, isn't there now a massive concern about large scale loan defaults and bankruptcies the next time mortgage rates reset in Canada?


Structurally, the Canadian housing market is much less broken than the US, IMO. Toronto and Vancouver are adding housing at rates unparalleled in any US city outside of Texas.

But Canada also has population growth ~10X that of the US.


> * I find it hard to trust data like this because of the immense pressure against side effects being attributed to the shots: pressure both on those impacted (for shame or disbelief or difficulty in knowing), on those doing the reporting (professional consequences, shame, disbelief), and on those in charge of administering the whole thing (monetary incentives, shame, disbelief, etc).

None of those really exist at the level where these metrics are collected, and myocarditis is a general medical condition that one would get treatment for.

I think it's hard for a lot of people deep into their beliefs to realize that the vast vast majority of the population just doesn't actually care. You get a vaccine. Done. If you then get sick for whatever reason you'll go to the hospital or not. Vaccine isn't even part of the thought process. Medical staff will treat you because that's what they do. Then it will go onto whatever metrics exist. Then later someone pulls the numbers together but they're not the ones collecting them.

There's no grand conspiracy because people don't actually care and it doesn't impact them in any way either directly or emotionally.

edit: As a movie villain once said: To you it was the most important day of your life, to them it was a Tuesday.


> None of those really exist at the level where these metrics are collected, and myocarditis is a general medical condition that one would get treatment for.

That sounds reasonable. Although I've read that many cases of vaccine related myocarditis are sub clinical (you don't find it until you proactively look for it, which there is only so much appetite to do).

> There's no grand conspiracy

I think you're typecasting me to some character in your head. I'm not claiming anything about conspiracies. I am pointing at the social and professional stigma around saying anything less than positive about anything related to vaccines. Is it some grand conspiracy to say that exists?

Your response is sort of proof of this: I said something less than positive about vaccines and now you think I'm a conspiracy theorist.


> I am pointing at the social and professional stigma around saying anything less than positive about anything related to vaccines.

No, you're extrapolating those to wide scale second and third order impact that you have no data or logical baseline to support. Second and third order impacts related to vaccines that override many other higher priorities for short term decision making. You're claiming that a medical professional who doesn't speak out about vaccines will also look at someone having a medical condition, look up their vaccination records, look at if this condition may be related to vaccines, and then change the medical diagnosis they write to not put that condition on their medical record. Endangering the patient's very life through an incorrect medical record. A condition that actually happens more often in those without vaccines that get covid. A condition that happens significantly often on it's own with or without covid or vaccines being involved. Not just a few people but a majority of people to the point of drastically impacting the calculated prevalence of the disease.

I'm not even sure wha to call that mindset. I said conspiracy because the alternatives are even less flattering.

> Your response is sort of proof of this: I said something less than positive about vaccines and now you think I'm a conspiracy theorist.

No, I called you that because your argument is downright insane and I called you a conspiracy theorist because instead of reflecting on that your response is to call me as part of the conspiracy for merely calling you out.


My argument is much simpler than what you are reading: in a world where you get punished for doing a thing (even rightly so), less of that thing will happen. In our world, people are punished for saying things less than positive about vaccines (you can make the argument that this is a good thing, but you can't argue that this isn't true).

I'm making no claim on whether or not you should be punished for saying less than positive things about vaccines, I'm not making any claims about shadowy forces making this true. I'm just pointing out that it is in fact true.

This and only this is my argument. If you think that is downright insane or has no logical basis, well there isn't much else for me to say.

BTW, in case you missed it, I was somewhat convinced by your point that maybe this doesn't impact metrics like we are discussing above.


Following that logic, I suspect 90% of congress should be executed for one law or another that they voted for.

Looking at that study for Pfizer and Moderna it's a slightly increased risk of myocarditis and shoulder injury at the site of injection. That's it. All other side effects they either didn't have enough evidence for or found that the evidence explicitly rejects a causal relationship.

And better still, the severity of postvaccination myocarditis is much less than post-infection myocarditis.

However, the prognosis for myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination appears to be much less severe. In a study of nearly 4 million residents of Hong Kong, only one death occurred (1%) among 104 cases of postvaccination myocarditis, compared with 84 deaths (11 percent) among 762 cases of viral infection-related myocarditis (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01-0.57). In a surveillance study of cases of myocarditis related to COVID-19 vaccination in the United States reported to VAERS, among 484 hospitalizations there were no deaths, and evidence of ongoing myocarditis at follow-up cardiac MR was uncommon (13 percent)


Myocarditis is a pretty serious thing [1], so even a slight increase in risk in young people makes it pretty much a no-no to vaccinate them.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9888677/#:~:tex....


Fully agree, so one more reason to get vaccinated, as getting myocarditis from Covid is far more common.

https://newsroom.heart.org/news/myocarditis-risk-significant...


That only follows if the vaccine prevents infection.

The vaccines significantly reduce the severity and duration of covid. Reduced severity translates to a lower risk of complications, including myocarditis. It doesn't have to prevent infection completely to protect you.

No it doesn't. The study was the outcome of the vaccine irrespective of what happens after you get the vaccine. Get a full covid infection? Still counted. Get no infection? Still counted.

Still lower in the end.


Given that study you'd expect over an extra 10 years somewhere around 10k excess deaths from the vaccine in the US. That's probably very generous. That's tiny versus mortality rates from COVID.

Except of course it hits those who would not have had any problem with COVID in the first place: young people.

Personally, I'd like that explained to me before the shot.


> Except of course it hits those who would not have had any problem with COVID in the first place: young people.

Children also get much higher myocarditis rates from COVID than without COVID.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10352818/


The median household income in the US is $76k ($57k post taxes). Germany is $54k ($34k post taxes). China is $13k.

Even compared to Europe the amount of money for spending a US household gets is almost twice as much. There's more expenses due to a lack of a social net however those aren't constant over time unlike taxes. One year you spend $5k for medical bills and the next you spend $5k on a new Sofa.


Here's the thing I learned, tying it to revenue gets the company more revenue, tying it to BS gets middle managers promoted faster. Why? Because money may not materialize while BS doesn't require anything except itself to be a success. And since your own promotion and bonus are strongly based on how much middle managers like you...

"I like to say 'revenue solves all known problems' it’s the one metric that PMs and execs can’t game." - Eric Schmidt

https://x.com/ericschmidt/status/507219358246903809?lang=en


I'm not sure if you're being serious or ironic given the recent press attention about Google Search being crap to ensure that Google Ads makes more revenue.

So, yes, they definitely can game it by focusing on short term unsustainable wins and ignoring all medium and long term negative impacts. Push the AB testing games to their limits, like running the same text 5 times with minor "improvements", so that the statistical metrics no longer apply. Dark patterns that cause long term user value to drop but drives some short term revenue. And so on. Then you get the more fun ones like stealing work from other departments without giving them credit. They eat the R&D cost and you get the revenue win. A good middle manager will even spin it so it looks like their team did the R&D as well.

That said, it all works fairly well when you've got a monopoly in the area (ie: search and ads for Google) but in those cases most everything works fairly well.


I generally agree with your original comment, and I think a lot about Schmidt's quote when operating in a startup context. You're right that it's ironic in the Google context. Search should absolutely go back to being measured on retention and they should disentangle from the revenue team. And I agree that the real death of Google was in the statistical game: 95% confidence in a microscopic metric improvement still lets through serious quality degradation 5% of the time. This gets to another important point: OKRs should be _big_ or they're not worth doing.

I think revenue or any other KPIs makes sense when it's easier to drive the KPI the "right" way versus the "wrong" way. As a business grows the low hanging fruit are used up and things start to shift to the "wrong" way being significantly easier. Moreover if the culture is about driving a KPI then, like any culture, it's very hard to shift it and no one wants to eat the political cost of trying to do so. I think executives often forget that people are clever and will game any metric if it's possible. I was at a company where there was a silent agreement across the EMs to over-level engineers. The pay was below competitors at the same level and set by HR but the promotion committees were not run by HR. Every new EM that joined was horrified at first at the competencies of their engineers, but then either learned to play the game or eventually got pushed out by their ever growing enemies.

It's not their core business model and so far LLMs aren't very profitable. Investing a ton of money into a whole new business area with heavy competition that may be profitable eventually while not swimming in cash is often how companies die.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: