Hacker News Reader

Comment by rubyn00bie | Hacker News Reader

Holy shit. This is some absolutely astonishing levels of idiocy. Everyone want to know why a 33-year old was chosen? Because he can be controlled. Full stop.

I know this because it was something that became apparent to me when I was a young CTO. Any fully-qualified person, with experience, in their 40s-50s will not take enormous amounts of shit without throwing it right back. Younger, less experienced folks, will not jeopardize their "opportunity" and instead will shovel the shit down the latter. Young people will not push back and instead will seek to make their "sponsor" happy.

While it once hurt my ego to say it, I've come to terms with it, talent has shit all to do with opportunity, most of it is, if not all, is luck.

View on HN

> Everyone want to know why a 33-year old was chosen? Because he can be controlled. Full stop.

That's probably a factor, though from every indication I've seen of the internal dynamics of this administration it's probably a bigger factor in the sales pitch of the policy entrepreneurs selling picks to the President than it is in the actual selection process. As I read it, the bigger reasons this administration chooses young allied ideologues for senior positions for which they lack the traditional credentials are twofold:

(1) They want allied ideologues that don't need to be controlled. If they could find qualified people with the right ideological credentials they wouldn't shy away from them, but they usually can't and the ideological credentials are the key indicator that people will make the “right” decisions without explicit control, and

(2) They want a long-term impact on shaping the nation, party, and broader conservative community and jumping members of their fairly narrow factions ahead in resume building this way means that in the next Republican administration, and in Republican/conservative think tanks, media networks, etc. in the meantime, their faction will be far ahead of where it was a few years ago in people with the the kind of resume that gets them positions.

Too bad Jared lied on his SF86. This would be a great addition to his distinguished line of jobs.

> They want allied ideologues that don't need to be controlled

My first thought too. The older manager type isn't going to take shit, and may have their own agenda. A lot of my older managers (like Director/VP/CTO), be they in the Defense Contracting side, or corporate, were pushing contracts to their friends, or fighting personal or ideological battles.

This agrees with everything I have seen over my career, and adds yet another powerful reason for why age discrimination exists in tech.

Why is it surprising that hiring managers consider candidate age?

Why is it valuable that hiring managers consider candidate age?

Valuable for who?

It's not surprising. It is, however, illegal.

Which point are you making?

* It’s illegal and therefore people shouldn’t do it.

* It’s illegal because people shouldn’t do it.

* It’s illegal which raises the cost of doing it.

* Other?

Technically, it's only illegal against older workers

Specifically, discriminating against someone over 40 due to age. (29 USC § 621: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/621 )

I was making the point, it's illegal. The person I was responding to did not seem aware.

You responded to me.

In what specific way is its legality relevant? The bare observation that it’s illegal doesn’t mean anything.

I bet every sufficiently experienced engineer reading this had the same reaction as you have.

I think the main reason is that young people can be paid less. They also don't realize that your pay is your take home divided by hours worked, and that if you are salaried and working 80 hours a week you are actually making half what you think you are making.

More experienced developers who actually have kept up with their skills are much better, but the fact is that a lot of the development work out there isn't at that level. A lot of it is just plugging and chugging Java, JavaScript, etc.

This resonates alot. I’d add another incentive for the “sponsor” is that they can pay you less as well, as its an “opportunity”. As a sibling commentor said though, you gotta be good enough, so dont be too hard on yourself for giving it a crack.

Relevant: I had a few “opportunities” in my late twenties.

The post-mortem of this administration is going to be horrific. It may sound conspiracy-theoryish now, but if things play out how we've seen from so many other examples of bad behavior from this administration, I can't help but think we're going to end up having our most valued defense research secrets sold out to the highest bidder.

Elections have consequences, and the consequences of 2016 will be felt for a long time.

>>>>I can't help but think we're going to end up having our most valued defense research secrets sold out to the highest bidder.

That's not anything new. NYT, 1999: https://archive.is/GjzkI "The certification was the first such notice to Congress under the law, which was passed in the aftermath of a Congressional uproar last year over the transfer of sensitive missile technology to China."

> Any fully-qualified person, with experience, in their 40s-50s will not take enormous amounts of shit without throwing it right back

I'm a 20-something occasionally put in a position where I have to antagonize people in leadership positions to make them change how they work. I'm a corporate IT leadership bad cop. You're right, it's much easier to do this with less experienced people - but on average I'd say age hasn't really made any difference. Younger people (<40) just tend to be less likely to get visibly pissed off when I question decisions they've made.

I suggest this might be some kind of survivor bias.

Any person on this kind of position who is not able to push back on the bullshit will likely to be burnt out by 40s-50s,so only the ones that acquired that skill are still around.

As is the case with any job, be good enough, be amenable enough, and work hard enough. Nobody wants to pay an idiot who's hard to deal with and holds entitled beliefs.

Not sure about this situation here with the DD, but I'm sure you can cut yourself some slack. Being good enough means exactly that: good enough. And then a dash of luck on top of that helps tremendously.

Have you seen who's the new Director of National Intelligence?

There's a guy who'd approve politically-motivated domestic wiretaps in the name of national security!

Particularly infruriating for those "unlucky", hard-working Americans whose tax burden is being used to fund this person's luck-fueled "opportunity".

> Everyone want to know why a 33-year old was chosen? Because he can be controlled. Full stop.

Huh? That's an ageist comment, and should not be acceptable.

You don't believe the average 33-year old candidate is far easier to influence and manipulate than the average 60-year old candidate?

No they want you not to say a thing because they don't like it, not because it could be true.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com