Hard to tell. For example, if COVID came from the Wuhan lab, then I suppose we would say they've been brilliant at PR since they haven't really been seriously hounded over that.
Yes they suppressed any possible investigation by removing any possible proof and silencing every single witness, quite clever from them. But also a big reason why that doesn't went along is because that's not only a Chinese issue, at this point is quite public who hired those labs...
California's population is 36% larger than Texas' population but only had 1.8% more votes for Trump. In contrast, California had 111% more votes for Biden.
Why does there tend to be a reflexive set of predictable comments on any article about racism within the tech industry that boils down to "Here is some half baked unresearched explanation that justifies why this instance of racism isn't that big of a deal?"
Because it permits people to take no action. If people admit there is a problem then they must justify their inaction. But if there is no problem then their inaction is justified be definition.
Sometimes I wonder how many people are running experiments on HN users to see what percentage of initial comments tend to be reflexively about the headline as opposed to the actual conclusions drawn in the article.
In this case, reacting to the headline is less outrageous.
The sage wisdom from the ILM professor was essentially to avoid pissing off rejected candidates by not interviewing them, as interviewing is a signal that the employees are qualified.
That’s pretty fucked up, when you think about what that means from a practical perspective. You’re either interviewing people who are unqualified (some of whom will get positions due to circumstances) or turn selection of candidates over to a star chamber.
> The sage wisdom from the ILM professor was essentially to avoid pissing off rejected candidates by not interviewing them, as interviewing is a signal that the employees are qualified.
This exactly the opposite of what the article says:
"First, internal candidates who were rejected after interviewing with the hiring manager were half as likely to exit as those rejected earlier in the process."
> The sage wisdom from the ILM professor was essentially to avoid pissing off rejected candidates by not interviewing them, as interviewing is a signal that the employees are qualified.
It makes sense, if the candidate is interviewed + rejected they know there is no upward mobility for them in the company. The next logical step is to look for employment elsewhere that may offer upward mobility.
Opposite. If they are interviewed then they know they are being considered. Further, they are less likely to leave if an internal candidate is selected. The article opines this is because employees will then believe that future hires might also be internal, whereas an external hire signals broader competition for a role.
