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

Google tries new angle on hiring

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–69 of 69 posts

Re: Google tries new angle on hiring

#61

Post by rozim »

noamsml wrote: post #18
arkitaip wrote: post #8

"The new approach includes a new “rule of five” that limits the number of interviews a candidate can attend to no more than that number, said Laszlo Bock, head of human resources. In the past, would-be Googlers were often subjected to 12-14 interviews, he added." Wow, they actually consider 5 interviews to be a lean approach to interviewing; no wonder their process is convoluted. Methinks Google seriously needs to re…

Well, depends on how you count. Is 4 one-two hour interviews by different people on the same day considered one interview or four? (Assuming, of course, a preliminary phone interview would constitute the fifth)

A normal onsite interview is 45 mins and yes, a normal start is the phone screen which counts as an interview too.

I work at Google and have interviewed O(250) people there.

Re: Google tries new angle on hiring

#62

Post by 16s »

They still ask silly questions. It's almost like Jeopardy for Nerds.

* Convert decimal 11 to binary.

* How many bits are in Unix permissions.

* What does set UID mean.

* How do you rm a file named -f

* How are hard links different from soft links

* What does const mean

* More and more Jeopardy for Geeks questions

It was like a Unix/C trivia game. No reasonable person would name a file -f (but that's beside the point)...it's just fun thinking of all the ways you could remove it if you ever had to.

Re: Google tries new angle on hiring

#63

Post by olegrog »

16s wrote: post #62

They still ask silly questions. It's almost like Jeopardy for Nerds. * Convert decimal 11 to binary. * How many bits are in Unix permissions. * What does set UID mean. * How do you rm a file named -f * How are hard links different from soft links * What does const mean * More and more Jeopardy for Geeks questions It was like a Unix/C trivia game. No reasonable person would name a file -f (but that's beside the point)…

They may have been considering you for a "site reliability engineer" position, which requires knowing these types of things.

I've been involved in ~100 Google interviews and I've never seen questions like this in a SWE interview.

Re: Google tries new angle on hiring

#64

Post by krschultz »

michaelcampbell wrote: post #46
krschultz wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can't. First off, there will be a small lip to keep it from falling in flat. This means that the hole is actually smaller than the manhole cover by an inch or more. Second, no matter how you orient an equilateral triangle with on point facing down the hole, there is an edge across the top that is too big to fall in. The way to visualize this, if you take one edge of an equilateral triangle and sweep it in a circ…

> First off, there will be a small lip to keep it from falling in flat. This means that the hole is actually smaller than the manhole cover by an inch or more. Exactly, and with a big enough lip/flange, ANY shape will work.

Not a square. The diagonal dimension of a square is sqrt(2) * the edge length, so roughly 1.414*edge length. So if you rotate the square cover 45 degrees, you can kick it right down the hole no problem. Sure you could have a cover that was several inches bigger than the lip, but assuming the lip is only going to be on the order of .5-3" and the cover is going to be around 24-36" wide, you can always rotate the square one ot fall down there.

Re: Google tries new angle on hiring

#65

Post by bkhl »

Stormbringer wrote: post #22
bkhl wrote: post #7

I went through 8 interviews (over the course of 8 months) before I got an offer from Google. By the time Google gave me the offer, I already accepted an offer from the other company. I told the HR of Google that their process sucks (of course, I said it indirectly) and she agreed with me. I'm glad to hear that Google is finally making changes here.

Are they still limiting it to only PhDs and Masters? That to me always struck me as their biggest mistake. The common perception from people in the industry is that many of the best programmers are self taught. That doesn't preclude doing a degree of course, however even the really good programmers I've met that did degrees say that they really ramped up their learning efforts after leaving university (and that was m…

I doubt that Google ever tried to hire only MS/PhDs. I went through interviews and got an offer when I was only a BSCS student. I also know a lot of people who don't have MS/PhDs and work at Google.

On your 2nd point, I totally agree with you that self-taught programmers should actually get a degree in CS or any related major. Although the programming classes might bore them out, there will be courses and professors who will take them to somewhere they would have never known before. This is just my generalization and, of course, will not apply to everyone ;)

Re: Google tries new angle on hiring

#66

Post by jmillikin »

16s wrote: post #62

They still ask silly questions. It's almost like Jeopardy for Nerds. * Convert decimal 11 to binary. * How many bits are in Unix permissions. * What does set UID mean. * How do you rm a file named -f * How are hard links different from soft links * What does const mean * More and more Jeopardy for Geeks questions It was like a Unix/C trivia game. No reasonable person would name a file -f (but that's beside the point)…

Funny, I got those sort of questions on my first phone screen, and I called them "pulse-checkers". As in, checking the candidate has a pulse and hasn't blatantly lied on their resume.

I would expect anyone who's been through a CS101-level class to do small decimalbinary conversions in their head, and anyone who's administered a UNIX system to know how to terminate an option list.

Re: Google tries new angle on hiring

#67

Post by [deleted] »

rimantas wrote: post #15
sliverstorm wrote: post #10

Too bad they won't ask about manhole covers anymore. I figured that one out on my own a long, long time ago. (free points!) P.S. If you know why they make them round, then do you know why they don't make them triangular? ;)

I googled for the proper spelling of "Reuleaux triangle", and Wikipedia's article has this: > Because all diameters are the same length, the Reuleaux triangle, > with all other curves of constant width, is an answer to the question > "Other than a circle, what shape can you make a manhole cover so that > it cannot fall down through the hole?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuleaux_triangle

[deleted]

Re: Google tries new angle on hiring

#68

Post by [deleted] »

rimantas wrote: post #15
sliverstorm wrote: post #10

Too bad they won't ask about manhole covers anymore. I figured that one out on my own a long, long time ago. (free points!) P.S. If you know why they make them round, then do you know why they don't make them triangular? ;)

I googled for the proper spelling of "Reuleaux triangle", and Wikipedia's article has this: > Because all diameters are the same length, the Reuleaux triangle, > with all other curves of constant width, is an answer to the question > "Other than a circle, what shape can you make a manhole cover so that > it cannot fall down through the hole?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuleaux_triangle

[deleted]

Re: Google tries new angle on hiring

#69

Post by michaelcampbell »

krschultz wrote: post #64
michaelcampbell wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First off, there will be a small lip to keep it from falling in flat. This means that the hole is actually smaller than the manhole cover by an inch or more. Exactly, and with a big enough lip/flange, ANY shape will work.

Not a square. The diagonal dimension of a square is sqrt(2) * the edge length, so roughly 1.414*edge length. So if you rotate the square cover 45 degrees, you can kick it right down the hole no problem. Sure you could have a cover that was several inches bigger than the lip, but assuming the lip is only going to be on the order of .5-3" and the cover is going to be around 24-36" wide, you can always rotate the square…

> with a big enough lip/flange

Your flange is not "big enough". For an absurd example, consider a hole 3" to a side, and a flange 48' in width.

That said, I honestly meant this as a mathematical/rhetorical statement, not a practical one. So yes, you're correct that for any reasonable flange width (given the assumption we're talking about steel/iron manhole covers, and accepted values of the material's strength, etc.), some shapes wouldn't qualify.

My point was to show that the question, taken at its face value, isn't even a good question. It assumes a flange, or no shape would work as a cover, as the cover would simply fall into its own hole. Thus, if we're to assume a flange (or a taper; it could be argued wine bottle stoppers and the holes they "cover" are both "circles"), we should be able to assume one of arbitrarily large size, and then ANY shape will work.

Post reply on HN