If John Carmack moves to a small, otherwise ordinary town, the average level of programming talent becomes higher than the national average. But that's a rather useless statement, isn't it? Saying a random developer in that town is probably better hinges on selecting Carmack from that random sample.
It's almost never the case that the information you have is just "lives in Bay Area or does not", and almost always the case you'll know something vastly more informative than geographic location. As you put it, "FFS of course MS...". You'd probably repeat that for several areas, like around Boston perhaps?
Being able to randomly pick a better developer from the general population doesn't really help in any practical case I can think of.
You'd probably repeat that for several areas, like around Boston perhaps?
No. I'm saying that, of course, some companies in other areas have been able to attract highly talented folks -- it does not follow, therefore, that the region as a whole has been able to do so.
Being able to randomly pick a better developer from the general population doesn't really help in any practical case I can think of.
The quality of the distribution determine your pool when recruiting. If the middle of the distribution skews toward lower talent, with a low sigma, then it says something about your likelihood to even find someone toward the upper end of the scale. Let alone begin vetting them on other factors, such as accomplishments, interpersonal dynamics, expected compensation etc.
Let's take this in the context of your original comment. You first say you "expected" a negative comment about Zynga. Then you go on about anonymous users (of which cletus is not). Next, a leap to the conclusion that people's birth origin (in this case Australia) has something to do with their ignorance on the state of Zynga, leading to such unconstructive comments.
At any rate, I don't see how a highly intelligent person, who works for Google in NYC, should somehow be filtered out of HN, nor how you can arrive at such a ludicrous statement. In addition, your new argument seems to be "some companies" may attract such talent, but the Bay Area itself somehow attracts talent without companies? As if without the high-tech firms, there would still be some high concentration of talent? Or are you stating, in an incredibly obtuse way "companies that do a certain thing very well hire people to do that thing very well and since of lot of those companies are here then a lot of those people are here too"?
As far as the top level comment, I suppose the irony is that cletus works for Google, and a quick Google search would reveal Zynga's financial situation.
First, the comment was about the glee with which this person welcomes the demise of a multi-billion dollar company employing thousands of people in this area. I was lamenting that I have to wade through cheap rabble-rousing which I could already predict would be at the top, not because it contained any particular insight or was even well thought out, just because it cheered on some ill-defined hate most readers have for Zynga. I wanted to filter him out because his comment appeared to be so thoughtless and predictable that it adds nothing despite gaining so many votes, and that it was made by a non-local nobody glorifying the potential dismissal of 2000 people from their jobs here. He may actually be very intelligent, but he's not contributing to this discussion, just pandering.
Whatever else you think that comment was about, disabuse yourself of those notions. It has nothing to do with how likely or not a Zynga bankruptcy is, and whatever the latest financial news may be. It has everything to do with the irrelevance of a drive-by, senseless expression of contempt for a company which is a major employer in this area, and the how/why it has floated to the top of this thread.
Second, that you would call my comment obtuse, when you have gone to such great lengths to avoid acknowledge the obvious fact that ecosystems exist, in order to make your comment seem as though it possesses a meaningful understanding of the world -- that, in fact, is the irony. Your entire rebuttal is defeated by situating on a map the locations of top MBA programs, CS programs, VC offices, and all sorts of activity which arise from the clustering of highly talented people. The Bay Area indeed has a critical mass of all these factors -- such is not the case in Seattle, Boston, Chicago, Austin, LA nor the entire European continent.
(If you are not aware of the precise meaning of the term critical mass, check Wikipedia. It means more than "really big.")
So yes, if you want to phrase it that way -- a lot of those people are here too. Enough that we have perpetuating institutions which further our advantage, and the rate at which our advantage grows, over the rest of the country. In fact, add to your map, arrows showing where the graduates from other top programs go, and even those arrows terminate here in disportionately large measure. To the detriment of those other locations, hence my conclusion that the largest share of talented people are found here because the incentives are just too great.
The obvious question then is, what to conclude from the fact that some programmers are not enjoying those incentives found here? I've given my answer already.
Lastly, this is not "my new argument," as if I have changed the subject somehow. This thread emanates from a parenthetical I made in my original comment, which people such as yourself have chosen to take extremely personally -- mainly because you cannot understand the difference between the statement "most of those programmers are mediocre" and "all of those programmers are mediocre."
Somehow, though, I'd guess that you don't shed so many tears when you read that the average man measures 5'10" in height. Or do you whip out the ruler to let everyone know your objection to this statement, since you are demonstrably at least 6'1" tall?
It's almost never the case that the information you have is just "lives in Bay Area or does not", and almost always the case you'll know something vastly more informative than geographic location. As you put it, "FFS of course MS...". You'd probably repeat that for several areas, like around Boston perhaps?
Being able to randomly pick a better developer from the general population doesn't really help in any practical case I can think of.