Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Destroy all hiring processes

b-list.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 104 posts

Re: Destroy all hiring processes

#91

Post by JSeymourATL »

msoad wrote: post #16

I'm working on open source stuff for two years now. Everything I do is public for everyone to see. Including my responses to bug reports and design documents. Yet I get the same algo/ds puzzle questions that you should've solved before in order to solve it in an interview setup. Google reached to me and said based on my profile I can skip the phone interview but I'm so afraid of the interview that I postponed it mult…

The best predictor of how someone will perform in a job is a work sample test (29 percent). This entails giving candidates a sample piece of work, similar to that which they would do in the job, and assessing their performance at it. Even this can’t predict performance perfectly > http://www.wired.com/2015/04/hire-like-google/

Re: Destroy all hiring processes

#92

Post by msoad »

eveningcoffee wrote: post #81
plonh wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you allow linear space?

Nope. Constant space. But there is a catch that is very likely not obvious here. All the numbers in the array are (were) unique (and the zero was not present).

You didn't say all the array includes all numbers with no repeats ect ect...

Re: Destroy all hiring processes

#94

Post by thaumasiotes »

d23 wrote: post #90
Mithaldu wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reviews at a company not following any kind of standard is a red flag in itself.

And if they do follow too many standards, it's a red flag. Or if they follow a mix of standards and non-standards. Big red flag there. If the person is wearing nice shoes, definitely a red flag. But you don't want them to be too normal, because that could be a red flag also. This hypersensitivity goes in both directions. One company may be worse than another at hiring, despite having an equal or better engineering de…

> One company may be worse than another at hiring, despite having an equal or better engineering department.

I don't understand this. As far as I can see, the entire goal of hiring is to have good workers, so the company with a better engineering department is better, by definition, at hiring engineers.

It might be that their hiring prowess comes in part (or in whole) from factors largely outside the hiring process specifically, something like "you get to work for Elon Musk", but their hiring is still better.

Re: Destroy all hiring processes

#95

Post by collyw »

soham wrote: post #62
dx211 wrote: post #23

A couple of years back, I was hiring some vendor developers for my team, and since I had some flexibility in the interviews that wouldn't be allowed for full-time employees, I tried an experiment: For one of the vendor candidates, I told him a day ahead of time that I'd be asking him to implement System.Collections.Hashtable in C#, with behavior equivalent to the one in .Net. The day of the interview came, and he whi…

Well said. That's exactly why it pays to prepare for coding interviews. If companies are not going to be thoughtful about interviewing, candidates can either reject those companies, or prepare for those interviews. My belief is that if more candidates are professionally prepared with those closed-ended questions, this will eventually force companies to be more thoughtful. [Us: http://interviewkickstart.com ]

When you have 15 years of general experience covering servers, databases, programming languages and other tools, its difficult to choose something to brush up on.

Re: Destroy all hiring processes

#96

Post by soham »

collyw wrote: post #95
soham wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well said. That's exactly why it pays to prepare for coding interviews. If companies are not going to be thoughtful about interviewing, candidates can either reject those companies, or prepare for those interviews. My belief is that if more candidates are professionally prepared with those closed-ended questions, this will eventually force companies to be more thoughtful. [Us: http://interviewkickstart.com ]

When you have 15 years of general experience covering servers, databases, programming languages and other tools, its difficult to choose something to brush up on.

Agreed, but what is my option? I can't expect companies to just talk about what I've done, take it at face value and hand me a lucrative job. Not to mention that things change in tech so often.

Re: Destroy all hiring processes

#97

Post by redblacktree »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #94
d23 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if they do follow too many standards, it's a red flag. Or if they follow a mix of standards and non-standards. Big red flag there. If the person is wearing nice shoes, definitely a red flag. But you don't want them to be too normal, because that could be a red flag also. This hypersensitivity goes in both directions. One company may be worse than another at hiring, despite having an equal or better engineering de…

> One company may be worse than another at hiring, despite having an equal or better engineering department. I don't understand this. As far as I can see, the entire goal of hiring is to have good workers, so the company with a better engineering department is better, by definition, at hiring engineers. It might be that their hiring prowess comes in part (or in whole) from factors largely outside the hiring process s…

Or they could hire a lot of people and quickly fire poor performers. I would class that as "bad at hiring," even though they manage to build a good team with the process.

Re: Destroy all hiring processes

#98

Post by thaumasiotes »

redblacktree wrote: post #97
thaumasiotes wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One company may be worse than another at hiring, despite having an equal or better engineering department. I don't understand this. As far as I can see, the entire goal of hiring is to have good workers, so the company with a better engineering department is better, by definition, at hiring engineers. It might be that their hiring prowess comes in part (or in whole) from factors largely outside the hiring process s…

Or they could hire a lot of people and quickly fire poor performers. I would class that as "bad at hiring," even though they manage to build a good team with the process.

Really? That's the only way to even measure your false negative rate. I'd call it an upgrade to what almost everyone does now.

Re: Destroy all hiring processes

#99

Post by eveningcoffee »

msoad wrote: post #92
eveningcoffee wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. Constant space. But there is a catch that is very likely not obvious here. All the numbers in the array are (were) unique (and the zero was not present).

You didn't say all the array includes all numbers with no repeats ect ect...

This is also case with the job interviews.

Some information is actually missing/not obvious and interviewers may actually evaluate your reaction to this situation because this would also model (to some degree) a real life situation.

So I added the missing bits (and fixed typos).

You have an array size of n of integers from 1 to n, that is not sorted. There are no duplicate numbers in this array.

One of the numbers got changed to 0. Given the array after the change return the changed number in linear time and constant space.

Assume the same array but two of the numbers got changed to 0. Given an array after the change return the changed numbers in linear time and constant space.

The first part of this problem should be simple. The second part is more tricky.

Re: Destroy all hiring processes

#100

Post by redblacktree »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #98
redblacktree wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or they could hire a lot of people and quickly fire poor performers. I would class that as "bad at hiring," even though they manage to build a good team with the process.

Really? That's the only way to even measure your false negative rate. I'd call it an upgrade to what almost everyone does now.

Sure, but as the linked article emphasizes, these are humans you're talking about. I would never intentionally create a hiring process where we accept a large false-positive rate (I think you meant false positive? As in, we thought he was good, but he wasn't) with the expectation that we'll just fire the poor performers. It's inhumane.
Post reply on HN