[lsc]

I think I said that it's turning down a bunch of people who are unwilling to practice.

And yes, turning down people who are unwilling to spend a week practicing is a cost... it could be a very big cost if someone else has a intake filtering procedure that allows them to snatch those people up at a lower cost, but it's also a really effective way of filtering out the people who can't learn those things after a few weeks of practice, which is super important.

[rxhernandez]

> unwilling

Can't. I clearly said can't. It's irrelevant to my work and my work consumes all the time I can give to work before I burnout.

> but it's also a really effective way of filtering out the people who can't learn those things after a few weeks of practice, which is super important.

What's your source on that? Can I see the stats that say neglecting more talented engineers so that you don't have to deal with subpar engineers is better than having a larger amount of more talented engineers while having to intermittently deal with subpar engineers? We have brilliant engineers where I work and the average and subpar engineers are in and out inside of a month or two. Didn't seem to hurt us at all in being the leader in our industry.

[lsc]

"Hire easily, fire easily" is another strategy, it's true! but not one used by most places I've worked. It is a slower strategy when sorting through a pool of mostly not good enough candidates, and often makes employees more nervous (Just like how you "Can't" take three weeks off to practice, other people "Can't" get fired after a few months on a new job.)