> False negatives means that your hiring process is longer, more difficult, more costly, and you therefore find it harder to grow, or to replace people who leave.
Exactly! If a couple of people on my team of six leave and they can’t be replaced for 6-12 months then I’m going to quit as well.
There will be more pressure on the remaining team to produce and most of the interesting long term work will be put on hold.
> I've heard somewhere that companies like Stripe would rather have false negatives than false positives in hiring.
The top tech companies can reject 10 good candidates for every 1 that they hire because there is a massive surplus of engineers who want to work for these companies and so time to hire for them is actually reasonable.
99% of tech companies don’t have the overwhelming surplus of good applicants to make this work. So when they try they see time to hire jump from 4-8 weeks all the way up to 6-12 months without any real decrease in false positives.
You seem to be assuming there is a lot of peer pressure placed on you if you don’t want to do it.
Why?
I’m simply saying there are always social costs. For example you probably won’t be listened to as much when there are conversations around improving system stability.
It’s like our after work Friday drinks are entirely optional - but lots of people build friendships and trust there and this can often lead to higher productivity.
If you can build these friendships another way or have a different path to an equivalently high productivity then not going doesn’t have an impact on you.
IME developers will go where the career growth is and it is up to the company to make sure that fixing a race condition on a Friday afternoon is rewarded.
> It translates to loyalty (albeit weakly) in that a woman who is older has better self awareness and knows what she wants in a relationship, where a younger woman might still be figuring that out
Than why are there clear correlations (for women) between # of monogamous relationships and likelihood of divorce? As well as between # of sexual partners and likelihood of divorce?
> So it's more valuable to have a woman who isn't independent?
Of course! More flexibility and dependence up to a point is certainly better.
Of course the idea that this means a woman can’t have her own hobbies seems to be taking things to the extreme.
> Seriously?
Yes and honestly.
I married young and I think the troubles we went through together have deepened our relationship in a way that would never have been possible if we were both “emotionally mature”.
I’d also question whether people really do mature “globally” that much - vs maturing in specific contexts and relationships.
For example if women matured significantly in a “global” sense between mid-20s to mid-30s you would expect a big drop in obesity as women started taking better care of their health. But you don’t. Etc etc.
> being a climatologist is what makes you qualified to speak on the climate
> If you don't have a PhD in the field, you don't belong in the big discussions where consequences matter.
Why?
I think what we need is accountability - there should be serious negative consequences for being wrong proportional to how strongly you stand behind an idea.
Were all the climatologists who were confident we were facing global cooling driven from the industry? Stripped of their academic standing?
Then you never should have had it in the first place.