We took that out of the title since it's so baity.
All: please let's not argue about that ludicrous title, which I'm sure the author had nothing to do with. At first glance, this piece looks a lot more substantive than the usual posts about hiring. Let's discuss the strongest bits. (Come to think of it, that's the Principle of Charity applied to articles.)
Not exactly. They hire the people who are best at interviewing at google, and they believe their process correlates the 2 things well. I'm not so sure it does, but I am not in HR/recruiting so I haven't studied the problem.
This ^. I'd venture to even suggest that this strict and narrow hiring focus results in many of the short comings of their products. Can't have it all I guess.
Like everyone they hire the best, the average and the worst in some proportion. No matter how you interview, you really don't know the what their contribution will be until X days after the hire date. And X is often a random value.
