Not sure if they're still doing it, but GitLab does the code review interview, and I too really liked it.
Before the interview, you clone the repo and get the app running on your machine.
For the first half of the interview, you review a pull request in real time. There's a mix of obvious and non-obvious callouts. And the second half, you actually implement your suggestions.
Honestly the code review portion alone is a great indicator of a dev's experience and soft skills.
I appreciate your opinion. And maybe there is some truth to your statement.
But in the professional context, none of that really matters IMO. If someone in your team is offended (and yes, it might seem stupid to you), then the dynamic of the team is thrown off. And ultimately, productivity suffers. That's how I'm thinking about it these days.
If you have a member in your team who's offended because of "guys" in "hey guys", then you need to question your hiring process, not the team dynamics.
I found that the fact these people get offended by such issues says more about themselves than the fact "guys" is sexist in some way.
i would rather offend one person than cater to one person. if everyone else is fun loving and easy going, you do the entire team an injustice by pandering to one toxic person and keeping them on the team... get rid of them. that is what a professional does... professionals value the team more than one person. one person can be replaced easily, a team cannot.
I'm so glad you feel this way! And thanks for your suggestion. I'll definitely do a follow-up post on good alternatives to commonly used non-inclusive phrases. This tweet by the Women in Tech SEO community covers some great alternatives to "guys" - https://twitter.com/techseowomen/status/1317545475021701126
reply
If a person unfamiliar with the nuances of American culture tried using some of these terms in the wrong context or with the wrong audience, it could be a real social train wreck (pals?). Using some of these terms could just be signaling that you and your group must be native born American.
Also no one over the age of 50 should be seen topless in public or ever refer to a group of people as “peeps”, “fam”, “party people” or “superstars”.
Did this community mean to be so Ageist and Nativist. (See how hard this is.)
Hey everyone, OP here. I know this can be a somewhat controversial topic, so I'm keen to hear your perspectives on inclusive language and inclusion in general. Thanks for stumbling upon my post :)
Your behavior change is fine, and you're free to modify your own behavior if you'd like obviously. You never said it, but where many people go wrong is when they say "I'm modifying my behavior to avoid any potential for a perceived slight, and you should too." Such behavior policing is toxic.
I used to have a severe anxiety disorder that partly stemmed from being overly sensitive about what other people thought about me. I had to consciously dampen down that part of myself, and I feel much, much better about it.
I think instead of getting individuals to avoid offending others, we should instead foster a mentality of resiliency. People get offended far too easily nowadays. They should learn how to stop caring so much about what other people think.
Of course there's a line beyond which you're just a jerk, but to me, just saying "hey guys" doesn't cross it. But that's just me, and I'm in a region of the country where "hey guys" is acceptable.
This comment breaks the site guidelines badly. Ideological flamebait, name-calling, and (especially) personal attacks will get you banned here. We've had to warn you before. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting, which means editing out any swipes that make it into your comments?
On the other hand, I just looked at your recent comment history and am pleased to see a lot of mostly substantive comments there. Thank you for that. If you'd just be careful to take out the swipes (as in the last paragraph of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24813852), the problem would be solved. We'd appreciate that.
You are slightly improving as a person. I did not expect that. To respect your personal growth, I'll retire this account.
In the case example that you linked, I find it disappointing that you still do not read entire threads. The original article is a Wikipedia article with many authors. The original comment, which critiques either Wikipedia or Baumol & Bowen's original study, includes the summary:
> So - this is simply a bad, ignorant example. It's not just wrong, it's flagrantly, wildly, outrageously misinformed, and is based on an almost total lack of insight into an industry that is worth $146 million a year - of which around $90 million is income from streaming.
My comment concludes with the line:
> This is a bad, ignorant example. Not just wrong, but flagrantly, wildly, outrageously misinformed.
I understand that you object to when we (those who know of the Prime Directive) hold a mirror up to HN. It is embarrassing to imagine how other people must see us, knowing how we see other people. However, that does not mean that we should stop looking at ourselves in the mirror.
