Hard disagree on this. Large companies can't afford false negatives because false negatives can hide out and move from team to team without detection. At a small company if the same thing happens it means leadership is incompetent and you have bigger problems anyway.
At the risk of over-explaining (hopefully) obvious satire, I'm considering a "false positive" to be someone who was hired who should not have been, i.e. the hiring process gave a positive result that was wrong.
Large companies can and often do afford sizeable percentage of workforce making zero to negative contributions. This would be devastating for a small team with a finite runway
Indeed! But it's generally much harder to reach consensus and actually remove someone at large companies. Especially for a startup with limited runway it's existential, whereas at a large company there is far more to lose from a lawsuit than from eating a high salary as a net negative.
