[antoinevg]

There is a difference between promising a unicorn and having a proven track record. That you are too lazy to verify the background your potential hire is providing you is 100% your problem. Bite me.

[marktangotango]

How would that background verification work exactly? Your groomed references are providing objective evaluations? Bite you indeed.

[antoinevg]

This seems to be a common theme on HN where folk who purport to be senior level profess their ignorance as to how one goes about performing one of the very basic tasks their role would require of them.

If you don't know how to do background verification on people then you have far bigger problems than your fears of being gamed.

[le-mark]

Back channels would be one way, but then how to verify the back channel? Sibling "I know and your dumb" response not very illuminating here.

[antoinevg]

My ongoing experience is that this question is never asked in good faith so please don't misunderstand me.

What I am saying is: I think you know and you have an agenda.

If you truly don't know then this is really something you should know if you are doing the job you are saying you are doing.

To use an analogy: I would not waste my time explaining how type systems work to someone who is arguing rabidly against them in an online forum.

If they care then it's something that is so important they should actually go out and educate themselves before getting into conversations about it.

[retiredcoder]

Specially at VP level...