Article on hiring: spelling

1 files changed, 13 insertions, 13 deletions

diff --git a/_articles/2020-10-20-how-to-not-interview-engineers.md b/_articles/2020-10-20-how-to-not-interview-engineers.md
index 2d61b0d..66d1aeb 100644
--- a/_articles/2020-10-20-how-to-not-interview-engineers.md
+++ b/_articles/2020-10-20-how-to-not-interview-engineers.md
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ to improve instead, which all went terribly wrong.
 
 ### Time candidates
 
-Timing the candidate shows up on the "talent" and "judgement" sections, and they
+Timing the candidate shows up on the "talent" and "judgment" sections, and they
 are both bad ideas for the same reason: programming is not a performance.
 
 What do e-sports, musicians, actors and athletes have in common: performance
@@ -126,11 +126,11 @@ huge productivity boost is to give them a touch typing course. If they are so
 productive with typing speed being a limitation, imagine what they could
 accomplish if they had razor sharp touch typing skills?
 
-Also, why stop there? A good touch typist can do 90WPM (words per minute), and a
-great one can do 120WPM, but with a stenography keyboard they get to 200WPM+.
-That is double the productivity! Why not try [speech-to-text][perl-out-loud]?
-Make them all use [J][j-lang] so they all need to type less! How come nobody
-thought of that?
+Also, why stop there? A good touch typist can do 90 WPM (words per minute), and
+a great one can do 120 WPM, but with a stenography keyboard they get to 200
+WPM+. That is double the productivity! Why not try
+[speech-to-text][perl-out-loud]? Make them all use [J][j-lang] so they all need
+to type less! How come nobody thought of that?
 
 And if someone couldn't solve the programming puzzle in the given time window,
 but could come back in the following day with an implementation that is not only
@@ -169,7 +169,7 @@ best.
 
 ### Ditch HR
 
-Slava tangently picks on HR, and I will digress on that a bit:
+Slava tangentially picks on HR, and I will digress on that a bit:
 
 > A good rule of thumb is that if a question could be asked by an intern in HR,
 > it's a non-differential signaling question.
@@ -180,14 +180,14 @@ engineering?
 
 In other words: is the question not signaling because the one
 asking is from HR, or because the one asking is an intern? If the latter, than
-he's just arguing that interns have no place in interviwing, but if the former
+he's just arguing that interns have no place in interviewing, but if the former
 than he was picking on HR.
 
 Extrapolating that, it is common to find people who don't value HR's work, and
-only see them as inferiors doing unpleasent work, and who aren't capable enough
+only see them as inferiors doing unpleasant work, and who aren't capable enough
 (or *smart* enough) to learn programming.
 
-This is equivalent to people who work primarely on backend, and see others working on
+This is equivalent to people who work primarily on backend, and see others working on
 frontend struggling and say: "isn't it just building views and showing them on
 the browser? How could it possibly be that hard? I bet I could do it better,
 with 20% of code". As you already know, the answer to it is "well, why don't you
@@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ and that the company is not a good place to work, as
 Paul Graham goes as far as saying that an even better motto than "don't be evil"
 is to "[be good][pg-be-good]".
 
-Abusing the asymetric nature of an interview to increase the chance that the
+Abusing the asymmetric nature of an interview to increase the chance that the
 candidate will accept the offer is, well, abusive. I doubt a solid team can
 actually be built on such poor foundations, surrounded by such evil measures.
 
@@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ proposal isn't sound enough to not become one.
 
 Even if the ideas were good, they aren't solid enough, or based on solid
 enough things to make them stand out by themselves. Why is it that talent,
-judgement and personality are required to determine the fitness of a good
+judgment and personality are required to determine the fitness of a good
 candidate? Why not 2, 5, or 20 things? Why those specific 3? Why is talent
 defined like that? Is it just because he found talent to be like that?
 
@@ -296,7 +296,7 @@ bit faster, but it is fundamentally the same.
 So here is the key idea: what people did *before* software engineering?
 
 What hiring is like for engineers in other areas? Don't civil, electrical and
-other types of engineers exist for much, much longer than software engineering
+other types of engineering exist for much, much longer than software engineering
 does? What have those centuries of accumulated experience thought the world
 about technical hiring?