|
|
|
|
|
|
by esseph
33 days ago
|
|
|
> You do realize that the person you're replying to is not making a value judgement and probably agrees with you. No, in fact I see no indicators at all that it is the case. > If you have two groups of people, one with a low but nonzero signal that they can do something, the other with no signals, is it still a good idea to use that signal? It may or may not be. It depends on the quality of the signal itself, its reliability, repeatability, and if that signal blinds you from other indicators or maybe even leads you astray. Having a signal doesn't mean it's particularly useful. Example: like triggering an alert on a VMs cpu utilization. It's certainly a signal but rarely is it good for anything or actionable. |
|
|
> No, in fact I see no indicators at all that it is the case.
Really, I read it as if it's a bad thing, but a true thing.
Like they're reinforcing my point, that if you have 10,000 qualified candidates and capacity to review 500- grepping for Havard becomes an "easy" way to filter.
Treating people with nuance and balance is not easy to do at scale, you have to bias along some axis, and nearly every axis I can think of is a shitty one- because of course there are fantastic people outside of those axis'