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

I think the trouble is that most teams don’t need this level of performance. They don’t need the top .0001%. Those teams are the edge cases not even worth talking about.

And more importantly, not the ones you want to model your team after.


> Measured against what

Nothing I don’t think. The average is of the two scores: attitude and aptitude. The average of the two must be at least 7.

Unless you’re taking about how each interviewer calibrates. In which case it’s common for interviewers to be coached on how to rate candidates. Your calibration indeed seems too harsh for this parents system


Some qualifiers would be helpful to engage with you. Certainly threat of punishment shouldn’t be the only motivator in a healthy society, but it probably needs to be one.


How do you find those comments erroneous?


Here, there is not one source saying “we were told”

The other handwaves about "rehashing" to wave away Freight Waves, while linking to comments on Reddit. You imply there's only one comment that says "we were told"

The other also implies the claim is they cannot listen to the radio.


It seems you are referring to my comment in some of those (and apologies if you're not) but my comment was not about waving away any point Freight Waves makes or says entirely but about which link the discussion should start around (which itself was far more about Jalopnik than Freight Waves). Nor was it implying anything about how many comments were on Reddit (or elsewhere) about it, just how it started and a recommendation people should read from there out instead of Jalopnik down. Dang has since changed the link to Freight Waves directly which is enough I probably wouldn't have bothered commenting.

As noted elsewhere, I did make a grave error in saying listen instead of sing to when writing the comment and by the time someone mentioned it it was too late to edit the comment. A great example of why you want to base discussion off of sources closer to the original first :).


The stock purchase occurred in 2015. Hoeft wasn't CIO until 2021 it seems:

https://www.dodgeandcox.com/financial-professional/us/en/new...


There's a difference between saying "there are more important things (to you) to put your energy towards" and "the lab leak theory is wrong, stop talking about it"

The former is reasonable, the latter is not (assuming the theory is unproven either way at the time).


I don’t know, I think that might be a bias of some kind. The free shortcuts are obvious and so the alternative sounds ridiculous. No one claims to be a genius when they save time by driving instead of walking. But at the margin, of course everything has a trade off.


I think that was a typo and they meant 22 + 47, which equals ~70 Ohms


Note that tolerance and uncertainty are different. Tolerance is a contract provided by the seller that a given resistor is within a specific range. Uncertainty is due to your imprecise measuring device (as they all are in practice).

You could take a 33k Ohm resister with 5% tolerance, and measure it at 33,100 +/- 200 Ohm. At that point, the tolerance provides no further value to you.


It’s not nearly that simple:) Component values change with environmental factors like temperature and humidity. Resistors that have a 1% rating don’t change as much over a range of temperatures as 5% or 10% components do. This is typically accomplished by making the 1% resistors using different materials and construction techniques than the lower tolerance parts. Just taking a single measurement is not enough.


I’ve only ever seen “this ^” refer to the parent comment, not the one directly above it as you mention. So as long as the comment hierarchy is maintained (which it is on HN) then the reference is clear


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

Search: