821–830 of 837 posts
iStreamPlanet | Backend Engineer | Remote | Full Time We are looking for talented engineers to join our Seattle team onsite or remote. Competitive compensation Remote Work Tech Company extras (401K, Bonus, Stocks) Looking for: 5-10 years of relevant experience. Strong understanding of one or more industry-standard languages (e.g. Go/C/C++/C#/Java/Swift/Python). Experience working with distributed systems Experience d…
Warning: I interviewed with them and was given a task with an obscure library to learn which had a veeeery long API. When I pointed out that it was unreasonable for them to expect me to learn this unknown library, which was not even in the job spec, they ghosted me. Complete waste of time.
I don’t know which position you interviewed for, but my guess is one involving javascript, as it’s, I believe, the only one where we ask to use a library. If that’s the case, the “obscure” library is immutable.js [0], one with mere 27k+ stars on github. I do apologize that we didn’t outright said that we are not a good fit. Would be curious to learn what do you think we should’ve done. It’s completely fine not to be…
I suggest that your drop the snark (double quotes, mere) when trying to recruit. Not to mention you are not addressing the "ghosting" part, which is disrespectful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regardless of how many stars the repo has on github, why would you expect someone to learn a library just to take a code challenge for your company when the job spec doesn't even mention this library as a requirement? The recruiter specified that "it should only take 2 hours" to complete the task, while thats absolutely false as I would have to read the whole API etc. Also when I asked for a different challenge in ei…
I don’t think any company specifies exactly the job requirements as there are many, especially as the job progresses. The point of the assignment is to see how well can you deal with new challenges. Interestingly enough, other developers went through the assignment without any trouble way under 2 hours. Glad it worked out for you. Not everyone is the right fit and I’m glad we found out earlier than later. Good luck
May be they did know immutable.js already, few may have even starred the project on github.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t know which position you interviewed for, but my guess is one involving javascript, as it’s, I believe, the only one where we ask to use a library. If that’s the case, the “obscure” library is immutable.js [0], one with mere 27k+ stars on github. I do apologize that we didn’t outright said that we are not a good fit. Would be curious to learn what do you think we should’ve done. It’s completely fine not to be…
> "If that’s the case, the “obscure” library is immutable.js [0], one with mere 27k+ stars on github." I suggest that your drop the snark (double quotes, mere) when trying to recruit. Not to mention you are not addressing the "ghosting" part, which is disrespectful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think any company specifies exactly the job requirements as there are many, especially as the job progresses. The point of the assignment is to see how well can you deal with new challenges. Interestingly enough, other developers went through the assignment without any trouble way under 2 hours. Glad it worked out for you. Not everyone is the right fit and I’m glad we found out earlier than later. Good luck
> other developers went through the assignment without any trouble way under 2 hours. May be they did know immutable.js already, few may have even starred the project on github.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "If that’s the case, the “obscure” library is immutable.js [0], one with mere 27k+ stars on github." I suggest that your drop the snark (double quotes, mere) when trying to recruit. Not to mention you are not addressing the "ghosting" part, which is disrespectful.
I did address the ghosting in other comments. He decided not do the assignment. We should have been more explicit and outright say that we are not a good fit, which is our mistake.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did address the ghosting in other comments. He decided not do the assignment. We should have been more explicit and outright say that we are not a good fit, which is our mistake.
What about the snark?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about the snark?
What about it. He said it's an obscure library. I wanted to make sure that others get the full picture.
I am glad that I don't interact with you regularly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about it. He said it's an obscure library. I wanted to make sure that others get the full picture.
I am fascinated to see that you do not see anything wrong with sacra-quoting someone-else's words in Public. I am glad that I don't interact with you regularly.
Same goes to this conversation. While you attack me personally I just address your points.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am fascinated to see that you do not see anything wrong with sacra-quoting someone-else's words in Public. I am glad that I don't interact with you regularly.
What you reas as a snark was just a point. He called the library obscure. Don’t believe many others would use that description. I quoted it to make a point not to take a stab at him. Same goes to this conversation. While you attack me personally I just address your points.
You can choose to "win" the argument, or you can choose to learn.
> I quoted it to make a point not to take a stab at him.
"For JS projects, we ask candidates to use immutable.js, which has 27k stars on github, which most wont' consider as obscure"
vs.
"... the “obscure” library is immutable.js, one with _mere_ (emphasis mine) 27k+ stars on github."
Quotes are used for snark in this context, and you know this as well as I do.