Ask HN: Are there any software companies that hire people without a gauntlet?

A lot of "boring BigCo" (think banks, insurance companies, etc as opposed to AppAmaGooBookSoft) are essentially indifferent to technical ability, because it is not the primary determinant of success at working in their organization. This also describes the overwhelming majority of government technical work.

That said, I might counsel either a) getting good at interviewing or b) getting good at avoiding interviewing by pre-qualifying yourself to hiring managers. My rationale for this is pretty simple: the best jobs in software (project selection, monetary rewards, stability of company, desirable working conditions, coworkers who can find their way out of a paper bag, etc) typically lie after an interviewing process. Given that this is true, and that you'll spend +/- 1,000 hours working for every hour you spend interviewing, optimizing for your interviewing experience doesn't sound like it is in your long-term interests.

In an ideal world, I'd say do not join a company that doesn't challenge you. If you are not challenged in an interview, that's a tell-tale sign, that the work is going to be boring and talent mediocre.

But given that the world isn't ideal, there are times when we just want a job - it seems you are in such a situation?

In that case, I'd say start with people who know you and your work. They are likely to recommend you, leading to an easier evaluation.

If you are doing this without anyone's recommendation, then start with companies that are not core tech companies. e.g. Hospitals, academic institutions, cheap dev shops and firms whose needs are just a bit more than IT. Their gauntlet is usually lighter weight.

Look for a company that's rapidly expanding. They'll be the ones who just got 10+ million in funding for the first time. It's hard to be rigorous about hiring practices when you're looking to hire 300-600 new employees in a single year.

I wouldn't suggest that unless you're desperate for a job and/or experience. You'll get tons of work experience you may not have gotten at a more stable company, but that's offset by the chaos you'll see on a day to day basis.

    I don't care about what technologies that company may work with. 
    I can learn any technology.

pretty naive.

Why?

unless you're talking about device physics, or materials science, or math, or something - you know, really hard...

i don't see why picking up some new language or web framework or version control system should be beyond a reasonably skilled practitioner

cause you will only have a basic skill in it. sorry but I wouldn't hire you with a basic skill when I could get younger people that have the same skill and will probably learn faster.

if you are advanced in your skill set, than I will hire you probably depends on how you act, but just saying "I can learn any technology." is pretty naive. maybe you briefly scratched an egg of the technology but you are so far behind the others that we could get pretty reasonable other people.

You should really focus on stuff that you are doing else you will never master anything and be a junior all the time.

No offense, but your standpoint sounds like the naive one. You'll miss out on a lot of good talent if you are only hiring from a pool of people that are pre-specialized.

For any position below senior engineer or tech lead, I couldn't imagine putting much stock at all in competency in any specific tech stack. Hiring quick learners helps you hedge your risk if you ever need to pivot (scale, platform swap, etc).

from 5 people only one will be a quick learner, even if they all say they do. it's just not just the language that you need to learn, basically you mostly also need to learn things about the product.

I would recommend giving them an excuse to not put you through the gauntlet.

I got pretty tired of the boilerplate technical recruiter questions, so I created a public github repo and starred it so that it is super visible for anyone who wants to vet my skills (or lack thereof).

Having a strong professional network is also incredibly useful. When you are 1 hop away from the hiring manager, you'll move faster.

With those two pieces in place, you've answered the fundamental questions of 'do you know what we need you to do?' and 'are you a reliable human?'.

If I don't have some minimum requirements for candidates how would I be able to identify the right fit?

I'm in an industry that lots of people want to be in. We get lots of applications. Some filtering must be done. The basic interview is one filter.

The wrong candidate affects my company. That means it affects my employees too (most?). A critical part of the filter is to determine if applicant who WANTS to be here will fuck things up for the people I NEED to be here.

Its not just about you.

> I'm in an industry that lots of people want to be in.

What industry are you in?

> A critical part of the filter is to determine if applicant who WANTS to be here will fuck things up for the people I NEED to be here.

How do you do that?

We have a pretty tight evaluation process. Still not perfect tho