[jeremy6d]

> But we're not looking for some crazy evangelist and we don't expect people to devalue other things in life to prove their interest in programming.

Well, of course you can't _say_ that. That's the whole point of the article: that "passion" is a euphemism for the signaling companies do. We want passionate developers, and we get to define "passion" for you.

What makes hiring so hard is that it's a gamble. Human beings don't come with specs you can evaluate to know whether or not they will help or hurt your mission. But, you know what, companies don't come with specs that will tell an applicant whether the job will enhance or stifle one's life. I wish we could stop playing these word games that imply there are rigid patterns to what makes a successful employment relationship, and instead put that energy into getting to know human beings as they are.

[stcredzero]

Human beings don't come with specs you can evaluate to know whether or not they will help or hurt your mission.

You need to find people who can perceive the workings of the group and company as a system, then actively avoid pathologies and improve the group as a whole. Most groups aren't solely composed of such people, but the ones that work well have enough of them to regulate group interactions smoothly.

What makes hiring so hard is that it's a gamble.

It wouldn't be if there was a way that we could try people for a couple weeks, then six months before hiring. Almost anyone can pretend to be nice for 6 months for tens of thousands of dollars. Longer than that, you're either getting a genuine glimpse, or there's a darker talent at play.