Hacker News Reader

I don’t know if it’s “we hire at random” more so “we hire based on intelligent guesses/calculated risk”. It’s not completely random because there’s a resume and a rigorous process.

It's not quite random, the goal is to bias the errors towards false negatives (bad rejection) than false positives because bad hires are so expensive to recover from.

It’s not randomness it’s a bias towards consistency and avoiding false positives at the expense of false negatives. There are more qualified candidates than roles, generally speaking. If that changes then I suspect process will change too, as the cost of a false negative will become higher.

A better way to phrase it is that big techs outcomes in hiring are i distinguishable than a random processes would be.