Wooden bikes - <AUTHOR> https://materiabikes.com/2018/10/24/why-wood/ <comment><USER2> The vibration dampening is a red herring. As a point of comparison, the differences in dampening between various frames/materials is on the order of ~1psi of tire pressure normally. In other words, if you found yourself with the harshest of frames, you could drop air pressure by 1 or 2psi and be at the same level as the "smoothest" frame.

<comment><USER3> The gullibility of cyclists is the industry's most valuable asset. In tests, cyclists cannot tell the difference between frame materials when the frame is covered.

I think it is just really seductive to think you can get magically faster by a significant amount just by buying a new frame with that new bottom bracket that's claimed to be 30% stiffer.

<comment><USER4> I think this is oversimplifying how changes in material and aerodynamics can improve performance. A person such as yourself might not be impressed by a "new bottom bracket" with 30% increased stiffness, but someone who races might. Every ounce and second counts.

<comment><USER5> The problem is like 0.2% of cyclists actually race but it's about 95% of marketing.

<comment><USER6> And arguably, if the goal is to get a workout, an easier ride just means you'll have to cycle longer to reach your goal.

<comment><USER7> Counterpoint: for me, buying an easier (in my case: much lighter) bike, was the difference between deciding to ride or to not ride at all.

I don't think I'm alone in that.

<comment><USER8> You're definitely not wrong. I can (and have) ridden my cyclocross bike for hours, which I have no desire of attempting on a Citibike, what I was using before I bought my own bike.

<comment><USER5> Sure but to you and go: you don't need to spend 10k to get a bike that meets those needs. Anything in the 1-2k range (eg laptop) prices is a very very nice bike.

Both of my favorite bikes are cyclocross bikes. The first one I got used and upgraded the componyts to ultegra and bb7 discs. Was around 900 all in.

I may be a bit hypocrite with my second bike which was a factory replace of the first with a top of the line racing cyclo cf frame (weld failed). But the cost and some velocity touring wheels (which caused the frame failure in the first frame by moving stress off the wheels). So to me that bike cost $1200... But is likely a $4k bike. I don't know if that makes me a hypocrite or just savvy. But a lot of the bikes I test ride in the 1-2k range we're super nice. And there were plenty in the 700-1000 range as well (trick in Seattle is to buy bikes in August when the Google kids and M$ kids are going back to school)

<comment><USER8> Yeah, and I definitely didn't spend close to that much on it. It would still hurt me to have to replace it though, hence my preference for not locking it up outside. My point was more that, based on how I use it, it could've been a $10K bike.

I have several hours of work invested into my bike too, having installed proper fenders, a rear rack, and some safety equipment like lights and bells. That plus the ~$700 I have in it all told would not be enjoyable to replace.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> cuban-frisbee I use a bike as my primary transportation (I live in a very, very bike friendly city) and I don't think I have ever seen a wooden bike.

Vibrations from the road is not something I've ever considered since it has not been a problem in any of the bikes that I've had.

My primary considerations when considering a bike would be: * Price * Durability * Cargo support (like basket and rear hub)

<comment><USER9> If you do a road trip more than 80km, you feel the vibration. I find aluminum is worse than steel. With short, daily trips, I don't think people notice vibration.

<comment><USER10> My 2 cents, steel is better, I've had wrist issues with an aluminum bike that I just don't get with the steel one. It seems to dampen and absorb the high frequency vibrations.

<comment><USER11> Generally speaking this stiffness is the result of the tube shapes necessary to achieve similar strength and stiffness of a steel frame while weighing less.

A perfect example of this is the Cannondale CAD3. It had a massive downtube and huge (straight) seat stays as well. It was extraordinarily stiff and terribly unpleasant to ride, for most. Cannondale improved that to some degree by using S-shaped seat stays on the CAAD4 making the frame a less-efficient conductor of vibrations.

Modern aluminum bikes use hydroformed tubes with optimized shapes and shouldn't really have these problems. Unless you're talking about something with an aluminum fork. That's just a cheap bike. Aluminum forks are terrible.

<comment><USER12> It's rare to see a fork that's NOT aluminum. Even "carbon forks" are typically aluminum forks covered in carbon.

Source : I've shortened a lot of forks.

<comment><USER11> Eh... Most steerer tubes are aluminum for exactly the reason that you've shortened a lot of forks. In the field, Joe Mechanic is less likely to screw up an aluminum steerer vs. a carbon one.

As to what's rare, hell if I know. Aluminum forks are fairly common on low to mid-tier bikes and the cheap ones tend to suck.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> _The best materials for damping vibration have low density and low stiffness. When coupled with the low vibration transfer speed, these properties determine how well a material damps vibration._

Based on the table below by "stiffness" they mean Young-modulus. None of these quantities describe damping of vibrations in a material. Also Young-modulus and density determine the longitudinal vibration transfer speed (this is what they list in the table). So saying "coupled with low vibration transfer speed" is a bit misleading.

<comment><USER14> Yeah, I've still rarely seen honest discussions about what damping means in terms of structural materials.

If you made a bell out of cast iron instead of bronze, it would still ring, but it would ring for a shorter duration. This is because cast iron has higher internal damping than bronze. It is a viscoelastic effect, in that energy lost is proportional to the speed of movement (strain rate) within the material.

I imagine that most of the discussions about bike frame damping are not focused on this viscoelastic damping effect, but are more focused on the dynamic shock absorption effects that are a consequence of the mass and stiffness differences embodied in different frames. When you change frame material, you change so many other variables (tube wall thickness, etc) of the frame that a real apples-to-apples comparison is weird.

<comment><USER15> Does this have to do with the "grainy" texture of cast iron? I would think that it has more surface-area-like to traverse, thus the vibrational waves attenuate super fast, as opposed to brass where they can carry?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Engineered wood is truly an amazing material.

While touring a newly-constructed home a few weeks ago, I saw what appeared to be floor joists constructed out of thin, cheap particle-board. It turns out that they're made of engineered wood, and are actually stronger than an equivalent sawed wood beam.

[https://imgur.com/a/3AkZblF](https://imgur.com/a/3AkZblF)

<comment><USER17> Engineered wood and chipboard/ Oriented strand board (OSB) are a very different animal that particleboard or MDF. Each has their purpose. True particleboard is a very crappy material, best used for ballast and being cheap. MDF is smooth, stable, and machinable, and OSB provides a lot of tortional resilience.

For any home woodworkers, I don't recommend working with OSB or particleboard. However, OSB is moderately waterproof, which neither of the others is.

<comment><USER15> In the 80s, in Tahoe, we built a tree-fort near my house. My dad was a general contractor and we had a lot of MDF available to use from his company...

Yeah - MDF and ___SNOW_ __do not a happy tree house make.

The MDF sops up water like a sponge and deteriorates into its constituent particulate... which really sucked because our fort had two levels....

We built a house on the truckee river and there was a giant glue-lam beam that was used for the main truss of the roof. It had to be custom ordered from some manufacturer, and when I asked my dad why we were using that, he talked about how the glued laminate layers were stronger than a single material beam.

<comment><USER17> A critical part of composite materials is that they are dimensionally stable. They don't warp, elongate, or shrink, which is better than true wood. The glue and different grain orientations counteract the normal movement.

The grain patterns in OSB look a lot like those in parts made of forged carbon, and provide a similar purpose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Looking at the test results: 4-6mm permanent deformation when dropping it from 18-20cm? That doesn't seem very good, especially for a city ride with frequent curbs, small steps, road gaps, and a heavy rider like myself (92kg).

<comment><USER19> Does that mean if you drop something on the frame you'll get a little dent? Since it's wood? It's not a structural problem is it? Just like a cricket bat gets dents each time you hit a ball but it still works fine.

<comment><USER20> Here's a video of this test being performed on another frame: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCU7VT9fOpo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCU7VT9fOpo)

With a 20 cm drop the velocity is 4.95 m/s, or a pretty average bicycle pace (11 mph, 18 kph), ridden directly into a wall. All things considered, a 4-5 mm deformation isn't that bad. As long as it isn't splintering or splitting, which would be dangerous, the bike isn't going to see much forces in that specific direction. Rider weight doesn't matter because the rider will immediately be thrown over the handlebars.

In more realistic scenarios like hitting a curb or dropping the bike, the force will be much more vertical, which will give a several-times-higher mechanical advantage due to the fork rake. The tires will also absorb a lot of the shock loads.

In general wood doesn't lose strength from being beat up, no. Wood construction standards (which admittedly, I know only the basics about) usually assure you that dents and surface defects are not a big deal. The strength in most woods (particularly soft woods) comes from the fact that they're very fibrous and anisotropic, so when they're dented it usually moves the fibers around without actually breaking them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I would expect them to have problems over time with the wood-metal joints, since they respond to heat/humidity changes differently. This is often a problem with musical instruments.

</comment><comment><USER22> Ride comfort (on a rigid bike) is primarily a function of the tyres (size/inflation/construction).

A bike with cheap 23c tyres at 150psi will rattle the fillings out of your teeth.

The same bike with decent 25c or 28c tyres at e.g. 50-70psi (depending on rider weight) can float along with a magic carpet like ride.

<comment><USER23> Why call those 23c tyres "cheap"? Why mention price at all? Ride comfort is a function of tyre size, not tyre price. You can buy very "exclusive" expensive 23c tyres, pump them up to 7 atm. and have just as hard a ride as the person who just overtook you on his "cheap" 23c tyres.

That "magic carpet" ride does come at a price but it is not monetary: the softer the tyre, the more resistance and with that the slower the ride.

<comment><USER24> > That "magic carpet" ride does come at a price but it is not monetary: the > softer the tyre, the more resistance and with that the slower the ride.

Unless you're riding on a velodrome, pumping your tyres up to 120+psi doesn't decrease rolling resistance, infact the the opposite is true. If the tyre can deform around small bumps it rolls much more easily. This is why very expensive and fast tyres have casings with a high thread count (sometimes even made of silk) so they are more supple.

<comment><USER25> Fast Fitness produced a little spreadsheet to calculate optimal pressure based on tyre width, bike+rider weight and a very granular assessment of surface.[1]

Something else to take into account is the aerodynamic trade off as tyre width grows. I think I read somewhere that 25mm is roughly the sweet spot. What you gain in lower rolling resistance by going up to 28mm you loose in drag. That's a bit anecdotal (sorry) but I have heard it mentioned in a couple of places. The best source I could come up with was from Zipp's web site.[2]

Of course that might well be worth it to be more comfortable if it means you can keep your body in a more aero position as that will dwarf any loss from the tyres (again a guess).

Hopefully there's some numbers somewhere to back that up. Maybe Bicycle Quarterly or Tour Magazine might be a good bet for anyone interested.

Also [https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/](https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/) is always very interesting ...assuming you obsess over bike tyres as I'm sure everyone does. :P

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clk_LLBYFzA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clk_LLBYFzA) [2] [https://zipp.com/support/faq/faq.php](https://zipp.com/support/faq/faq.php)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Funny how the website only highlights the advantages of wood as a material, and plays down its disadvantages. Namely, a stiffer, more rigid frame is more efficient. I personally loved how my aluminium road bike rode, more so than steel, particularly because I can feel the road, and my pedal strokes have a more direct feedback.

If a frame absorbs some of that vibration, it is naturally going to absorb some of your energy. So "harshest" ride quality isn't exactly the term I'd assign to aluminum.

<comment><USER27> I guess it depends on the kind of bike experience you want. I see people riding extraordinarily impractical bikes every single day.

Of course that would make wooden bikes a matter of taste, and not superior by any stretch of the imagination.

<comment><USER28> > not superior by any stretch of the imagination.

I think it's safe to assume each rider has a different utility function, in some cases drastically different. "Extraordinarily impractical" bikes may very well have other upsides for a particular rider that outweigh the disadvantages for them.

<comment><USER29> It's also safe to point out that the vast majority of people for the vast majority of topics don't know and don't care. Don't tell me the people who go around cycling on tiny bikes with their heels on the pedal and their knees reaching their throat have found some kind of alternative definition of practicality...

<comment><USER28> I didn't say anything about an alternative definition of practicality. I said that practicality might not be as important for some people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Interesting idea. Unconscionable price.

I don't think you could justify spending that amount of money on a bike unless it is one of your life's deepest passions. Which seems rare.

Does the quality of bikes really change that much when you go up the price range, for amateur users?

<comment><USER31> €3000 is nowhere near the ceiling for expensive bikes, even for amateurs. I know plenty of people that have multiple bikes in that range and beyond.

If you want specific solutions things often get expensive. And yes there is a world of differens from a €1000 bike to one that costs €4000.

<comment><USER32> It's also easy to spend quite a bit extra on a bike once you have it. You almost always need to replace the saddle and pedals, so that's about $200. You get a bike fit and decide you want to change your handlebars and stem, so there's another $200. A year or two later, you want to upgrade to a set of lighter wheels, and that's $500 or more, easily.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> They don't mention that wood is quite a bit heavier than other materials. Their road bike frames weight 2.5kg, where modern (and much cheaper) carbon fiber frames come in below 1kg.

<comment><USER34> Yes, every time I've seen an article on wooden bikes I've looked and they are crazily expensive while being ridiculously heavy. I also tend to think they're ugly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Hopefully they never have a fire sale.

</comment><comment><USER36> I think they look cool and everything, but it still doesn't seem very practical for real use. Maybe if you are just occasionally cruising around on a nice day. Most people don't do very well with bike maintenance and I assume this would be a major issue with a bike like this.

</comment><comment><USER4> It's helpful to understand that, like carbon fiber, it's all in the epoxy resins. That's where the strength and durability ultimately come from.

</comment><comment><USER37> I wonder if wooden bikes bring any safety concerns in the event of a crash, since when wood breaks it can become reasonably sharp, like a spear.

<comment><USER38> I doubt the risk is any worse than with carbon fiber. [http://www.bustedcarbon.com/](http://www.bustedcarbon.com/)

<comment><USER15> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTfu0hjVtzE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTfu0hjVtzE)

Carbon bike disintegrates at 107 MPH

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Website seems down at the moment. This still works: [https://web.archive.org/web/20181121111648/https://materiabi...](https://web.archive.org/web/20181121111648/https://materiabikes.com/2018/10/24/why- wood/)

</comment><comment><USER40> I don't understand the market for bicycles in the thousands of euro price range. Bikes get stolen often enough for me to never be relaxed leaving such a bike outside a shop or caffe or such. If you can't leave the bike anywhere, it's almost useless, except perhaps as a virtue signalling device.

<comment><USER41> I live in the Netherlands and have not had my bike stolen in 25 years. Just use a good lock and only park in secured parking locations with gated access and cameras.

And don't buy a bike without knowing the full history and paperwork, otherwise you are shooting yourself in the foot by supporting criminals and raising your chance of having your bike stolen in the future.

<comment><USER42> I also live in the Netherlands, and if I restricted myself to only parking in secured parking locations with gated access and cameras, I would only be able to cycle from my office... to my office.

This (obviously) precludes you from cycling anywhere you might want to go (home, the shops, your friends houses, a restaurant, a bar, a cafe).

If you restrict yourself to parking in locations with cameras (e.g. stations), your bike will still probably get stolen, especially if it is expensive (I know people who have had their bikes stolen from station bike parks with cameras). I myself had the front wheel stolen from my bike that was parked between 3 CCTV cameras, next to a busy metro station, next to a shop with a security guard, and across the street from the main police station in the city.

<comment><USER41> If I go to a bar or shop I will park my bike in a nearby secured location and walk the last couple of minutes. At home I put the bike in a locked brick shed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I wish someone invented and actually sold tires which can't go flat. I don't mind if it makes the bike somewhat harder to ride. For short-distance trips (intra-city) this should be no problem, and could perhaps even save me a visit to the gym.

<comment><USER44> Tubeless tyres have been a thing for a few years now.

<comment><USER2> tubeless tires can go flat as easily as tires with tubes to close approximation. (there is some reduced chance of pinch flats but some increased chance of burping)

tubeless tires are commonly used along with sealant, which helps, but you can put sealant in a tire with tubes as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I just don't buy this. At all. Why don't we see the Tour de France peloton rolling through on wooden bikes? They can afford the best of the best.

<comment><USER46> 1\. Weight, while it is lighter per unit than CFRP, you need more of it to sustain the same rigidity making it heavier. You actually need very little CFRP for a bike and mostly solid or near-solid wooden panels. Quite some of the minimum weight of professional bikes is additional equipment and the gearing mechanism. (min weight is a bit less than 7kg)

2\. Stiffness. While not good for every day usage, it is good if you want to go fast. All energy absorbed is wasted as heat or vibrations (e.g. sound).

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> They're not talking about vibration damping, they're talking about attenuating impulses.

To dampen vibrations as soon as possible, you want very high stiffness.

</comment><comment><USER48> Riders can certainly be over-concerned about weight, but uh, it is pretty important. How much to these expensive beasts weigh?

</comment><comment><USER49> "The best bike is the one you ride."

</comment><comment><USER50> How durable are wooden bikes?

<comment><AUTHOR> Pretty durable. Better than carbon and can compete with aluminium – since the build is filled.

<comment><USER45> > Better than carbon

[citation needed]

<comment><USER51> Carbon bikes are made from hollow tubes, hollow tubes can buckle / collapse, plus carbon bikes are designed for lightness, not sturdiness. Wood can take a beating, but is a lot heavier.

<comment><USER52> Hollowness is nonsensical argument. Hollow tubes maximize strength per weight

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Did yer hear about the Wooden Engine?

It wouldn't go.

</comment><comment><USER54> Server error

</comment><comment><USER55> I think bikes will become a niche sports product, replaced by E-Scooters for basic transportation around town, and autonomous cars/minibuses for anything longer.

<comment><USER44> You don't get any exercise with an e-scooter, and personally I go a fair bit faster than most of them on my bike. Cycling to the work saves me time on my commute and the need not to go to a gym. My commuting bike (a very basic mountain bike, cost < 300 euros) has paid for itself multiple times over in saved money on public transport. Its an efficient lifesytle choice for me.

I can't understand why so few people cycle.

<comment><USER56> > I can't understand why so few people cycle.

Rain, snow, hills, sweat, cargo, parking, theft, [getting hit by] cars, maintenance.

I have two bicycles, and I'm considering a bikeshare subscription, because hauling them up and down three floors and maneuvering them around a tiny apartment is annoying.

Unrelated, but I was hit by a car on bike to work day.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you validate new hire candidates (especially senior leaders)? - <AUTHOR>

All throughout life, but especially recently, I've seen a ton of people who suck at planning, suck at getting things done, and suck at critical thinking.  However, these people are often great at personal relationships, so whatever their track record, they know how to navigate organizational politics and snag amazing referrals.  I was disappointed to see this also happen at senior levels, after getting senior management positions myself (before, I'd always given benefit of the doubt, maybe I'm not seeing the whole picture).
The result I see over and over is people building amazing resumes, but leaving a train wreck of a situation at every position where they get hired.  But on the resume, each train wreck only looks like an amazing company and an amazing job well done, with some nice referrals about the person's leadership skills.  It seems once you get one senior position, everyone automatically believes you're qualified to be a heavy duty leader, and nobody questions whether you need to be sent to the minors again first!  Especially if you have an MBA.
So my buddy and I are building something to try to fix this problem, but I'm curious.  Do you guys also agree it's a big problem that needs fixing?  In especially difficult projects/environments, is it just a situation where anyone would have failed, or is it usually that the person actually is that bad?  What are your experiences and what do you do now to make sure these people don't slip through the interview process into your companies and startups?
Me, for example, I once came onto a project as the #2 guy; this project was in the red zone, high visibility, and couldn't be cancelled.  I took one look and realized the #1 had done the architecture all wrong so that the requirements could not be fulfilled.  I spent 2 months with the team redesigning everything, and I mean everything.  Furthermore, the schedule could never be dependable because the #1 could not foresee whether certain activities were dependant on other activities, and so never planned for the details to happen in sequence.  The #1 guy of course took all the credit for a successful delivery and went on to make other glorious mistakes for other things.  I believe this is a classic story, and one that needs to be fixed.  What say you?
As for what I do to prevent such people from coming into my organization/project/etc, I tend to only rely on referrals from people I trust  in my innermost circle (which contains only 4 people).  Any other referral carries no weight in my mind and should be treated the same as any candidate off the street, no matter what the credentials or recruiters say. <comment><USER2> I'm currently reformulating my hiring requirements. Last time I hired people was about 9 years ago. Some of them were great (they still work for me), some awful.

I looked at the most awful cases and I think I've figured out what was missing -- a personal productivity / GTD system. From now on, all my candidates _must_ demonstrate their personal system for capturing ALL their tasks and keeping their todo lists synchronized with reality.

Allen's GTD style is not a requirement here. It can be a paper todo list, a Google doc, a mindmap, or whatever else they chose to use. The key here is that _they don't forget their tasks, and they get them done_ without babysitting on my part.

If they don't yet have such system but show promise, I may still hire them, but I'll make it clear that a personal GTD system is a _requirement_ , so if they want to continue working for me, they'll have to develop such a system. And of course I'll be happy to coach them on this.

And there's another key requirement, also related to Allen's GTD. I'm still looking for appropriate wording, but here's a rough draft: The candidates _must_ strive to understand _what_ do I want them to do, i.e. what shape I want to bend reality into using their hands and minds. They must be able to understand and imagine _what I want to achieve_.

<comment><USER3> Shouldn't you have a ticket system/todo-list/... for the whole team? As for the last paragraph - whether they understand your mission or not depends IMO again largely on yourself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Actually this is very common in many organizations. I hear many friends complain about their managers. It's a tough situation to be in. The part where the manager gets all the credit for work you've done, just isn't fair. Sometimes, I've heard good managers tell you to face the situation face on with that "bad" manager. If he/she doesn't change the situation, you go up to his/her manager, etc. However, it's not easy to do that, and how you do it may just make you look bad. Most companies should have feedback and review times, so that should be a good opportunity to raise issues. I think the root of the problem is to screen carefully when hiring the individual. Make sure the candidate goes through many cases studies properly or even go on a 3 months probation period. I also know big companies usually have leadership conferences or training seminars to keep the employees up to date. I took a course before, and realized I wasn't ready to lead. Not everyone can admit to that, when they have big egos or cocky attitudes. I'm curious to see what you and your buddy are building. Best of luck with your project.

<comment><AUTHOR> Humility is huge and almost nonexistent! I remember when I first did something hugely visible and couldn't handle it, felt like a total failure. But learned from it. It's funny how the best leaders I've ever seen or experienced also happen to be the most humble. Maybe that's why they become so good, because they're willing to acknowledge their imperfections and thus willing to learn.

<comment><USER5> "Maybe that's why they become so good, because they're willing to acknowledge their imperfections and thus willing to learn."

Motion seconded. Humility is often a component of self-assessment/reflection, and is a very important ingredient to the recipe of being successful, whether as a leader, as a person seeking happiness, or otherwise. Of course, this is also an incredibly difficult recipe to balance, and even more difficult to find already well-developed in a person.

Self-assessment is a wisdom most people, in my personal experience, don't have (both young and old alike). I'd rather have wisdom without conviction than conviction without wisdom. And I'd hope my employees and employers feel the same.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Well, one of the reason of this problem, is that when you have a bad manager, there are two ways of getting the manager to the door, that is up, or down.

Making him go down is quite hard. You have to build your case against him/her, and it will take quite some time. Plus, if you do such good job at your work that he can take the credit from, this may not be easy. Then again, if the situation is not okay in your job (because of him), it won't be any easy either. That is not counting his/her personal/political skills yet.

On the other hand, making him going up the ladder is much easier. Assuming that you are good at your job, so much that he can take credit from and then doing good reviews of him when you can, there is a good chance that he'll be promoted. While he will leave a train wreck somewhere else, he would leave you in peace, at least for now.

For that reason alone, I guess that is the reason why bad managers can go to the top, at least where incompetence would not have much effect on the bottom line. (ie. monopoly, having good people on the operational line, etc)

<comment><AUTHOR> Hehe, that's the exact definition of the Dilbert Principle. The problem though is that leadership is responsible for building and setting the culture. It's a recipe for poor organizations and poor morale, no?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I agree that this is a problem, and it is one I have run into repeatedly.

However, I don't know any good way to fix it. Hiring is a tough nut to crack. Clearly, one can always be more assiduous in following up references, but that's not always a big help, because you are then in the position of trusting what one stranger is saying about another stranger, in a situation where the motivations of the reference are not always clear.

Note that saying "Any other referral carries no weight and should be treated the same as any candidate off the street" doesn't solve the problem-- the "any candidate off the street" problem _is_ the problem.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hehe, I agree, that's the problem we're trying to solve anyway. The "any candidate off the street" set. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> You need to make an interview process that reflects the work they will actually be doing.

You need to answer 4 questions:

\- Are they smart?

\- Can they get shit done?

\- Are they passionate about their work?

\- Are they an asshole?

For programmers we solve this with the following:

\- Phone Screen

\- Coding Challenge (offline, on their time, reviewed by team)

\- Design Challenge (take loose requirements, build UI, models, and project plan)

\- Project Presentation (talk about an awesome project you did in detail)

\- Pair Programming (Work directly with an engineer to solve a simple coding challenge)</comment>


The Failed Experiment of Covid Lockdowns - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-failed-experiment-of-covid-lockdowns-11599000890 <comment><USER2> The study measured correlation of lockdown measures with number of reported cases, not positivity rate or death rate. Did they correct for number of tests done per capita in each state? I saw no indication that they did.

N.B. Written by the same person who wrote the economy was just fine in 2008 the day before Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy.</comment>


PBS Self-Destructs - <AUTHOR> http://harpers.org/archive/2014/10/pbs-self-destructs/

<comment><USER2> Could be an interesting story, but it's paywalled. Bummer.</comment>


A robot that transforms into a ball - <AUTHOR> http://robot-kits.org/2012/04/02/morphex-video-part-iii/

<comment><USER2> Beautiful piece of technology!

Also bridges the gap between sci fi themed nightmares and reality!</comment>