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

When hiring senior engineers, you’re not buying, you’re selling

hiringengineersbook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 694 posts

Re: When hiring senior engineers, you’re not buying, you’re selling

#231

Post by humanrebar »

EpicEng wrote: post #220
humanrebar wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty if you can cycle and get paid over $300k. If you had to, you could buy several walkable-to-work lots and join them into one big one in some cities. Or Uber literally everywhere.

So buy a bunch of property so you can walk a straight line or... don't walk. This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read here.

Huh? I was saying a FAANG salary in Columbus Ohio (for exame) probably buys you a car free lifestyle with the style of home you want, especially if you have a working spouse.

Re: When hiring senior engineers, you’re not buying, you’re selling

#232

Post by masonic »

crazygringo wrote: post #150
masonic wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

outside of SF there is basically nothing else walkable west of the Mississippi What a sad perception.

So where is it? Where can you live outside of SF that you don't need a car and can live a normal adult lifestyle?

First of all, SF doesn't really qualify. How many live in a neighborhood where their workplace, medical, grocery, and social needs are all walkable to/from?

Car-ownership-hostile != "walkable". Using Lyft/Uber isn't "walking".

Anyway, as to your question: parts of Sacramento, Auburn, Carson City, Eugene, Bend, and Boise all qualify, and that'slimiting to cities I know firsthand. Other cities that I hear this from others include Salem, SLC, ...

Much depends on what you consider to be "normal adult lifestyle". If one's definition of that includes walking through waste and needles to the Folsom St. Fair, SF probably does have a monopoly there.

Re: When hiring senior engineers, you’re not buying, you’re selling

#233

Post by jack_h »

kronin wrote: post #221
peanutz454 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But are architects supposed to write code? The example you give is embarrassingly simple and anyone should be (expected to be) able to write code for it. But aren't architects designing architecture. I don't think the architect or anyone in his team at my previous organization's IT dept could write code, but he could design system architecture.

How can you design something that needs to be implemented in code if you yourself can't write code? If you can't produce in the trenches, what makes you qualified to dictate what those that are in the trenches are doing?

This reply applies to several here.

I know a few architects (as in for buildings and civil structures) who wouldn't be able to pour a foundation, frame a wall, or run plumbing properly. They're working at a different level of abstraction and are concerned with different problems.

Or to put it another way, if you can code does that mean you should be able to design a CPU, even a very basic one? After all, how can you write a program if you don't understand how it works at the instruction, transistor, etc level?

Re: When hiring senior engineers, you’re not buying, you’re selling

#234

Post by Matthias247 »

humanrebar wrote: post #187
vonmoltke wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What if Google or Facebook offer you $300k no risk, with a relatively standard work life balance. If. People here sometimes make it seem like a senior engineer can just walk into a FAANG, chat with the receptionist, and walk out with a $300k offer. While it is certainly not the hardest thing in the world, these companies are still pretty selective and only employ about 10% of the total seniors in the market. More l…

Downleveling? I can guess what that means but some clarity would be appreciated. With sources if possible.

It means: You interview at Level X, but they give you later on offer for Level X-1. As a reason, they will claim you haven't scored good enough in the interview loop - which might be true, but also might have been the result of bad questions or an incompetent interviewer.

Sources: I know people in person who got these kinds of offers.

Re: When hiring senior engineers, you’re not buying, you’re selling

#235

Post by kortilla »

josh2600 wrote: post #34
tptacek wrote: post #3

A lot of this post seems pretty reasonable. But: In my experience, it’s fairly easy to judge technical skill. A friendly conversation about technical interests and recent projects can often be enough. Bullshit. Sounding credible in technical interviews is a skill, not the same skill as actually being a good programmer, and might even (statistically, in the large) be close to orthogonal to it. We found this out the ha…

Just to add some thoughts here: I’ve interviewed people who were google L7+ (IC) a couple of times who weren’t very good engineers, at least on the work sample stuff. I’ve found that the highest correlation to performance in senior engineers is raw algorithmic skill and willingness to say “I don’t know” when you don’t know. This is not true of hiring devops or sre’s. For those positions, you want the gopher archetype…

There’s a reason google doesn’t hire into L7, it’s because their hiring process for algorithms is garbage and provides lots of false positives and negatives when you are looking for real skills.

If saying “I don’t know” and being good at algorithms was enough, you could hire straight to L7 easily or could promote to in a year. Neither of these things happen.

Re: When hiring senior engineers, you’re not buying, you’re selling

#236

Post by jussij »

tptacek wrote: post #3

A lot of this post seems pretty reasonable. But: In my experience, it’s fairly easy to judge technical skill. A friendly conversation about technical interests and recent projects can often be enough. Bullshit. Sounding credible in technical interviews is a skill, not the same skill as actually being a good programmer, and might even (statistically, in the large) be close to orthogonal to it. We found this out the ha…

IHMO you're comparing two different selection processes.

The process you tried was to spend loads of time on carefully designed interview questions which then get used to filter out candidates.

The OP was not suggesting this approach, but instead suggested engaging in a friendly conversation about technical interests and recent projects.

I can see why the first approach might fail, only because it isn't that difficult to memorize several answers for well know questions and topics.

However, to hold a conversation on a particular topic would require a greater depth of knowledge, so I can see how this would be much harder to fake.

I suspect the second approach is a lot like how police catch people out who are lying. As number of lies grow it just gets harder and harder for the individual to keep all the lies consistent and coherent.

Re: When hiring senior engineers, you’re not buying, you’re selling

#237

Post by bloomer »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #224
WrtCdEvrydy wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it’s not even something I can open source if they don’t like it What? Of course you should... make sure you create a repo with the company name and people can create issues to collaborate on a better ToDo sample code.

You’ll get hit with a DMCA takedown notice if you do that.. most companies protect interview questions they ask and solutions to them quite severely.

There is no way to copyright someone else's work. Whoever produced the solution owns the copyright.

Re: When hiring senior engineers, you’re not buying, you’re selling

#238

Post by EpicEng »

humanrebar wrote: post #231
EpicEng wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So buy a bunch of property so you can walk a straight line or... don't walk. This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read here.

Huh? I was saying a FAANG salary in Columbus Ohio (for exame) probably buys you a car free lifestyle with the style of home you want, especially if you have a working spouse.

Oh, I lost context and missed the Ohio bit. got whooshed by that one, sorry.

Re: When hiring senior engineers, you’re not buying, you’re selling

#239

Post by james_s_tayler »

projektir wrote: post #86
dleslie wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best interview I had was a few hours of friendly conversation about the details of my resume. Then I was hired under probation, as everyone there was, and the understanding was that I could be easily dismissed if it was clear that I wasn't working out.

This would make me damn uncomfortable and stressed out once I started the job, and I'd likely take any other offer over this.

This is how all hiring works by law where I'm from. It's fine.

Re: When hiring senior engineers, you’re not buying, you’re selling

#240

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

Apocryphon wrote: post #140

All of these recurring interview threads makes me wonder: why are there only two interview preparation-focused boot camps right now? (Outco and Interview Kickstart) It’s one thing to take an algorithms course, and it’s another to excel at competitive programming, and still another to use those skills on the spot in an interview. Surely like any other admissions process, one can train for technical interviews in a gro…

There should be courses to fix HR. The candidates already know what they need to do and would get hired if not for the endless bullshit.
Post reply on HN