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

Red flags I saw while doing technical interviews

blog.interviewing.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 394 posts

Re: Red flags I saw while doing technical interviews

#251

Post by user5994461 »

nickff wrote: post #220
user5994461 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to play the legal game, the contract is void because it was signed under duress. Forcing the employee to sign in 24h qualifies as consent under duress, not free consent.

First, I don't care whether it's illegal; lying to people is wrong. Second, the definitions for fraud vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but the course of action recommended here falls under the common definition of civil fraud: >"Somebody misrepresents a material fact in order to obtain action or forbearance by another person; >"The other person relies upon the misrepresentation; and >"The other person suffers…

Economic duress is recognized as duress. That the candidate is rejected from the job if too slow, having no job and no income to eat is quite a strong duress.

Obviously there would be extra context in practice, whether the candidate has a job, has already resigned, etc... The typical HN commenter in SF already working at FAANG might not be an ideal scenario ^^

Anyway, there's no fraud or misrepresentation, as long as the candidate intended to join the company at the time of signing. If anything, the candidate moving to another company is evidence that they were really looking to move, thus there was no misrepresentation on his intention to leave.

Re: Red flags I saw while doing technical interviews

#252

Post by pnutjam »

101008 wrote: post #213
pnutjam wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just consider it getting paid to improve your resume. Whether this project is unmaintainable won't matter when you've moved on for you 20% raise at the next company. The one you're currently working for will never give it to you. - voice of experience -

Ha, thank you! Yeah, I am trying to remain positive, thinking that this is an oportunity to learn, etc. But at the same time i feel responsible if this fails :-/

I tend to feel responsible too, but just like, "none of us is as dumb as all of us"; teamwork ensures that your hard work can always be ruined by someone else's incompetence.

You get used to it...

Re: Red flags I saw while doing technical interviews

#253

Post by stronglikedan »

sumtechguy wrote: post #195
Galanwe wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After being on both sides of the interview situation for quite a while now, my feeling on this is more nuanced. The thing is, when you look for a job, you will often go for 5 to 10 interviews. On the other end, when I'm looking for someone to fill a position in my team, I will interview at the very least 50 candidates. That is to say, all things equal, the interviewer has most likely more incentive than the interview…

This is really why I use the 'easy' type questions (some variation of fizbuzz or something simple). A senior guy will crank it out in 5-10 mins. I then ask a question or two on how to improve it and a mini walk through of what they did and why. I also make it clear I sometimes get people who just can not do it but have the resume chops for it. I then usually spend the rest of the time digging on previous techs they h…

+1 for fizzbuzz. It still amazes me how this simple little test can often weed out a largish portion of candidates early on.

Re: Red flags I saw while doing technical interviews

#254

Post by pnw_hazor »

nickff wrote: post #220
user5994461 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to play the legal game, the contract is void because it was signed under duress. Forcing the employee to sign in 24h qualifies as consent under duress, not free consent.

First, I don't care whether it's illegal; lying to people is wrong. Second, the definitions for fraud vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but the course of action recommended here falls under the common definition of civil fraud: >"Somebody misrepresents a material fact in order to obtain action or forbearance by another person; >"The other person relies upon the misrepresentation; and >"The other person suffers…

It is not a lie to accept a later offered better deal. The better offer might never come through.

Would you really begrudge someone who left for an opportunity that is better for them?

You are mixing up loyalty with persons with loyalty to companies. The former is important the latter is foolhardy.

Re: Red flags I saw while doing technical interviews

#255

Post by BJBBB »

A view from another side. I am not a recruiting specialist, but have been retained by clients to "screen the candidates for someone like me". Greed and avarice typically win, so I tend to accept these follow-up gigs.

The types of engineering that I do are not the most technically difficult. But it is a very small piece of the engineering pie, so there are not many out there with my combination of skill-set and education and experience. That is, I may not be representative of what the client probably needs in the long-term, as I was hired by the client to solve a particular and unique problem.

So I typically screen for someone under 45 (I am over 60) that has done and is interested in certain types of math, programming, test, and hardware design. This is how interviews need to be structured - and just devolving algorithms and citing random information and doing circuit node calculations from schematics will be less likely to identify the engineer that you need.

As for the problems cited by the writer - they are relevant, but are structural and should be self evident to anyone out of school for more than one or two years.

Re: Red flags I saw while doing technical interviews

#256

Post by detaro »

nickff wrote: post #161
pnw_hazor wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can always accept the time critical offer and continue interviewing and then jump if a better one comes through. There is no reason to be nice or considerate to companies, they will drop you in hot second if it is convenient for them.

Accepting an offer without an intent to follow through is fraud. If you think your counter-party is dishonest or ill-intentioned, then you should refuse to enter into any agreement with them.

There is an intent to follow through when accepting the offer. Also, I'm sure you provide guarantees ensuring the candidate will actually be signed and not be quickly fired if you send out the offer letter, since sending the offer without the intent to follow through would be fraud?

Re: Red flags I saw while doing technical interviews

#257

Post by scottlamb »

GaryNumanVevo wrote: post #205
umeshunni wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These guys are hiring "top talent" only as a defensive measure, so that upstart competitors don't get them. It's not expected for "top talent" to actually contribute to something useful. Citation needed

Anec-data: Turned down an $800k Principal ML Scientist job at a FANG. Interviewed with a director who couldn't answer what I would be doing / working on. Facebook is notorious for this, lots of friends get absolutely eye-watering salaries to sit around and provide 1% lifts on click-through-rates. Most fortunately leave after the 1-yr vest.

> Anec-data: Turned down an $800k Principal ML Scientist job at a FANG. Interviewed with a director who couldn't answer what I would be doing / working on.

I agree that's weird. Edit: although when did this happen in the interview process? It's pretty common to first decide if you're interested in hiring someone in general and later do the match-making to a particular team/project. Maybe not at this level though...

> Facebook is notorious for this, lots of friends get absolutely eye-watering salaries to sit around and provide 1% lifts on click-through-rates.

It's worth it to Facebook to pay someone an absolutely eye-watering salary if they can get a 1% lift on click-through rates. This work doesn't interest me, but it's absolutely not the same as otabdeveloper4's claimed "These guys are hiring 'top talent' only as a defensive measure, so that upstart competitors don't get them."

Disclaimer: I work for a FAANG. I don't work on advertising but it obviously supports my salary.

Re: Red flags I saw while doing technical interviews

#258

Post by pnw_hazor »

user5994461 wrote: post #210
nickff wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accepting an offer without an intent to follow through is fraud. If you think your counter-party is dishonest or ill-intentioned, then you should refuse to enter into any agreement with them.

If you want to play the legal game, the contract is void because it was signed under duress. Forcing the employee to sign in 24h qualifies as consent under duress, not free consent.

Employment offers in the US rarely establish contract. Employers often rescind offers that have been accepted by persons for a variety of reasons. Similar for employees.

Sometimes a party that can show they relied on the offer and then suffered money damages after it was rescinded can get some relief in court, but it is rare. Typically these cases are folks who accept an offer, quit their job, and move across the country only to have the offer rescinded or the position is eliminated soon after they start. Most often employees harmed this way lose in court unless there is strong proof that the employer knew they were ending the position before making the offer.

Re: Red flags I saw while doing technical interviews

#260

Post by WC3w6pXxgGd »

Zippogriff wrote: post #203
megiddo wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm with you on this. 20+ years. My usual MO is to walk away from interviews that have jump-scare whiteboarding or require a quiz prior to an actual interview. I recently broke my own code at an interview and was rewarded with complete nonsense. Never again.

My new rule after my last job search is that I don't interview if I don't know enough about the interview process to be more than 50% certain I'll come off OK in it. Not that I'll get the job, but more than 50% certain I'll at least look alright. The FAANGs practically (sometimes, actually) give you a study guide, at least. Lots of smaller places act like knowing anything more than the names and titles of the people…

Why study everything for FAANG specifically?
Post reply on HN