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

Oxidizing the Technical Interview

blog.mgattozzi.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 76 posts

Re: Oxidizing the Technical Interview

#51

Post by vertex-four »

riazrizvi wrote: post #48
vertex-four wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, amphetamine is significantly different from methamphetamine.

Methamphetamine, was developed by the Nazis after seeing how effective the amphetamine Benzedrine was for the American team in the '36 Olympics. Under the name Pervitin, the Nazis used the drug throughout WWII, it enabled them to keep fighting for days on end. Blitzkrieg was partly a byproduct of meth. This is also part of the reason why German troops found it so easy to murder large numbers of unarmed people during…

I don't know much about that, but I do know that methamphetamine is a significantly more grim drug, being neurotoxic in moderate doses - I've used a few stimulants but I wouldn't touch that.

Re: Oxidizing the Technical Interview

#52

Post by ori_b »

fasterthanlime wrote: post #46
ori_b wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like you're trying to be snarky, but you just come off as both passive aggressive and incorrect.

I'm confused - people usually love it when I give them unsolicited and lengthy reviews of their work, framed in a way they didn't intend it to be, but that lets me roleplay as someone who has authority on the matter and is talking down to them?

Do you think this is helping your argument, or merely making you look bad? Because to me, it just looks like you're off the mark and digging a deeper hole.

Re: Oxidizing the Technical Interview

#53

Post by uryga »

fasterthanlime wrote: post #46
ori_b wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like you're trying to be snarky, but you just come off as both passive aggressive and incorrect.

I'm confused - people usually love it when I give them unsolicited and lengthy reviews of their work, framed in a way they didn't intend it to be, but that lets me roleplay as someone who has authority on the matter and is talking down to them?

> framed in a way they didn't intend it to be

what part of @saagarjha's comment are you referring to here? TFA is clearly meant to be a riff on Aphyr's posts (they're linked on the first line) so i'm guessing you mean something else?

> give them unsolicited reviews of their work

i mean, a significant portion of HN comments are "i liked/didn't like the article because XYZ", none of which are "solicited" in any way. what's different about this one?

as a writer i'd probably prefer sth like @saagarjha's comment to e.g. "i was hoping it'd be more like Aphyr's stuff, didn't really hit the mark for me"

--- edit ---

and i don't mean this as a gotcha, but what's different about e.g. [this comment](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22450007) about your own article, saying

> this guy needs to learn to edit things down

your response in that thread was very different despite the comment's harsher tone.

Re: Oxidizing the Technical Interview

#54

Post by fasterthanlime »

saagarjha wrote: post #49
fasterthanlime wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused - people usually love it when I give them unsolicited and lengthy reviews of their work, framed in a way they didn't intend it to be, but that lets me roleplay as someone who has authority on the matter and is talking down to them?

I think the author made it very clear what they were aiming for, so I fail to see the issue in providing multiple, actionable pieces of feedback that I had when reading it on how they could meet their goal better and consider for next time. Unless your specific complaint is that I didn't include anything specifically positive, to which I can only point to the many other comments that said they enjoyed Aphyr's style a…

> Personally, if someone consumed something I worked on, actively felt that there was something they felt could be improved, and didn't mention it to me, I would have felt as if they had done me a great disservice. I don't have to agree or even take their input into account, but I would very much like it to exist.

And that's a perfectly fine personal preference - but it's not the default.

My issue with your comment is not that you didn't include anything positive. It's that you're directly addressing the author, giving them feedback they never asked for! Just like you didn't ask for my parody of your comment.

HN is not an open issue tracker for "every blog ever". Comments like the top of this thread keep happening, and are part of the reason some people disable comments, or end up blocking some referrers altogether.

Asking if someone is open to feedback on something before offering criticism is really not that hard, and does wonders for everyone's mental health.

Re: Oxidizing the Technical Interview

#55

Post by puzzledobserver »

fasterthanlime wrote: post #43
saagarjha wrote: post #37

I can see the influence of Aphyr's classic posts on this one, but a bit of constructive feedback: * If you're going to emulate a writing style, you need to go all in. Study the word selection, cadence, choice of punctuation…go back regularly to ensure you're consistent with it. Once you set up a reader's expectations, anything that doesn't match will stick out and break their immersion. Read it yourself, and then if…

It seems you're trying to emulate one of Linus's classic rants with that comment, but if you wouldn't mind a bit of constructive feedback: * The word selection in your comment isn't quite right. Linus has been known to use expletives others deem inappropriate when reviewing another human being's work - but since that's what you seem to be going for, you might as well commit to the bit. * The big difference between yo…

I don't follow this criticism. GP came across as respectful but critical. I have read Aphyr's original blogs, and felt similarly when I read this blog. I even felt that the comment was phrased more eloquently than I could have. There is also no swearing or personal attacks, which are typical of a rant.

Isn't honest, critical, constructive feedback par for the course on HN?

Re: Oxidizing the Technical Interview

#56

Post by flak48 »

rvz wrote: post #5

Nice jokes and great hacks aside however, unless you're interviewing for a compiler engineer position, That is absolutely overkill for this type of question to the point of unreadability. One can argue that the 'question' is too generic for this systems/compiler developer position. I would just ask you about basic LLVM internals instead. To those 'serious' interviewers with 10x developer syndrome looking at this as a…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

Re: Oxidizing the Technical Interview

#57

Post by calcifer »

saagarjha wrote: post #47
fasterthanlime wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems you're trying to emulate one of Linus's classic rants with that comment, but if you wouldn't mind a bit of constructive feedback: * The word selection in your comment isn't quite right. Linus has been known to use expletives others deem inappropriate when reviewing another human being's work - but since that's what you seem to be going for, you might as well commit to the bit. * The big difference between yo…

> It seems you're trying to emulate one of Linus's classic rants with that comment If I were, I'd probably be courteous enough to link to it as the original author did. > Linus has been known to use expletives others deem inappropriate when reviewing another human being's work - but since that's what you seem to be going for, you might as well commit to the bit. I don't swear online :) > The big difference between yo…

> I tend to do this far too often, and my goal is that it is not characterized as "going off at" people.

So your goal is not to change your own behaviour, which by your own admission has been found annoying by others before, but to change people's perception of it.

> I'm working on it.

Well if you are, your comments on this thread are certainly no evidence of it.

Re: Oxidizing the Technical Interview

#58

Post by saagarjha »

calcifer wrote: post #57
saagarjha wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems you're trying to emulate one of Linus's classic rants with that comment If I were, I'd probably be courteous enough to link to it as the original author did. > Linus has been known to use expletives others deem inappropriate when reviewing another human being's work - but since that's what you seem to be going for, you might as well commit to the bit. I don't swear online :) > The big difference between yo…

> I tend to do this far too often, and my goal is that it is not characterized as "going off at" people. So your goal is not to change your own behaviour, which by your own admission has been found annoying by others before, but to change people's perception of it. > I'm working on it. Well if you are, your comments on this thread are certainly no evidence of it.

> So your goal is not to change your own behaviour, which by your own admission has been found annoying by others before, but to change people's perception of it.

Currently, yes. The problem that was brought up was that some people viewed this as a rant/criticism, so if I can make it not appear to be that (and thus no longer annoying) I feel like that would address the issue?

Re: Oxidizing the Technical Interview

#59

Post by calcifer »

saagarjha wrote: post #58
calcifer wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I tend to do this far too often, and my goal is that it is not characterized as "going off at" people. So your goal is not to change your own behaviour, which by your own admission has been found annoying by others before, but to change people's perception of it. > I'm working on it. Well if you are, your comments on this thread are certainly no evidence of it.

> So your goal is not to change your own behaviour, which by your own admission has been found annoying by others before, but to change people's perception of it. Currently, yes. The problem that was brought up was that some people viewed this as a rant/criticism, so if I can make it not appear to be that (and thus no longer annoying) I feel like that would address the issue?

> some people viewed this as a rant/criticism

What makes you so sure that those people are wrong and you are right? There is this saying, I don't remember by who, that goes something like "If someone is an asshole, they're an asshole, if everyone is an asshole, you're the asshole".

To be clear, I'm not accusing you of anything. I just think maybe some introspection is warranted?

Re: Oxidizing the Technical Interview

#60

Post by saagarjha »

calcifer wrote: post #59
saagarjha wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So your goal is not to change your own behaviour, which by your own admission has been found annoying by others before, but to change people's perception of it. Currently, yes. The problem that was brought up was that some people viewed this as a rant/criticism, so if I can make it not appear to be that (and thus no longer annoying) I feel like that would address the issue?

> some people viewed this as a rant/criticism What makes you so sure that those people are wrong and you are right? There is this saying, I don't remember by who, that goes something like "If someone is an asshole, they're an asshole, if everyone is an asshole, you're the asshole" . To be clear, I'm not accusing you of anything. I just think maybe some introspection is warranted?

I'm not saying they're wrong, hence the use of "currently". I'm figuring it out in the other subthread.
Post reply on HN