> The problem is, this sounds good, but in reality the world doesn't work like this.

"The world" is quite a large thing to make claims about. It certainly works like I describe at some companies.

> Hiring is complex, there are many legal implications of the interview process, I had to correct one of my employees just yesterday because he said the word "young", this is a big no no in the UK, we can't look for a "young person". I had to clarify and expand that he meant this is an entry level position designed for people looking to get exposure to certain technologies in an environment that will foster their ambitions and provide opportunities for growth as we expand. Fun this stuff isn't it, few developers want to learn these rules.

So your dev said something ageist and you taught them how to rebrand it? I'm really not seeing how this supports your point. If HR screening is just a way to cover your ass because your staff are bigots, I'm even more happy to be screened out by your HR department.

> As firms get larger, responsibilities get divided into lines that are more immutable, sadly this will mean the person doing the first stage of the hiring probably knows nothing about computer science, but may well have an excellent understanding of team psychology and HR laws.

What this boils down to is "this is the way it's done, so this is the way it should be done".

If you hired developers that embraced diversity in practice rather than in appearance, you wouldn't have to have such an understanding of HR laws. It sounds like you're so caught up in solving this legal problem that you don't realize you have an actual problem.

To address your concern about demonstrating that you didn't receive any transpeople's applications: I'm not saying you shouldn't keep records of who applies. I'm sure you can figure out a way to keep records of who applies without having HR decide which applicants are considered.

> When I read a comment like your last one, I find it slightly saddening, it reminds me of being in Hong Kong last month, a friend of mine wouldn't even try the pickled ducks tongue, I've no idea why, he eats pate, but outright refused to even take a bite. I fear you are talking out of complete ignorance.

On the contrary, I've worked at firms like the ones you've described, and that's exactly why I despise your way of thinking. I've experienced plenty of it and it's toxic.

> There are some teams in the big corporate firms that I'd rather quit (and have done!) than join, but there are also ones where I've worked with some of the best developers, mathematicians and scientists I've ever met, that's a fairly high bar. One in particular had a 'cap' of £250k per year for a developer, to give you an idea the average price is £60k. This big finance firm realised the value the right developers have, the money was symbolic, we had budget for anything we could remotely justify (PCIe SSDs when they were unheard of etc) we had very good levels of autonomy too, with a relaxed working environment, even if other people on other floors were wearing suits. I've also worked for a 'brogrammer startup' that I ended up quitting swiftly as they were breaking the law. I wouldn't project my experiences out to the whole set, only keep in mind that there are interesting opportunities everywhere, understand their barriers and obviously tailor my CV to fit each application.

I don't disagree that there are great devs on dysfunctional teams. There are even non-dysfunctional teams at large firms (

> It is foolish to write them all off, and frankly portrays that element of dismissing something you don't understand, which I find to be very poor trait for an engineer.

Why is it that you assume I don't understand it? Could you consider that maybe I do understand it but I value different things than you? It sounds to me like we've got differences of values, not different levels of experience.