251–260 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obligatory https://sellsbrothers.com/12395
Ok but consider - is there any department at Microsoft other than marketing that Richard Feynman would have been suited for?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> where I realised no one gave a shit about anything except my utility as a walking set of tech keywords. I am genuinely asking. Why is this objectionable? Why do people find it so horrible that their labour is a commodity? To me that just tells me I should treat my labour like a merchant treats his goods. Always be checking the market to ensure you have something worth selling and while you might sign long term deal…
Because selecting candidates based on tech stack is almost universally the sign of incompetent tech management. Anybody who understands software, knows that intelligence and master of fundamentals trumps tech stack experience without exception. Linus Torvalds would unquestionably become a better Ruby on Rails developer within four weeks than 90% of people with 10 YoE in it. Good organizations hire talented and bright…
I'm not even an exceptionally talented programmer: just a competent one. Of course there are real differences between languages that matter, but at the end of the day ifs are ifs, ints are ints, functions are functions, etc.
Relevant old joke: https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/4k994j/if_...
That said: there are some reasonable scenarios when you want to hire someone with prior experience; for example as a first or second hire it's probably a good idea in most cases, or if you really need someone who can hit the ground running.
My one and only Google interview went this way years ago. Each round they'd send me more books to study, which frankly I couldn't be bothered to read given the circumstances. My experience ended when an interviewer in round 3 or 4 asked me an obviously scripted question. I answered sarcastically, he got peeved, and I never heard from them again. I'm not claiming I'm Google caliber, whatever that means. Obviously I'm…
It's pretty clever, I'm surprised Microsoft didn't try it (or maybe I was just too young to remember).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, every bad hire is really bad. However, companies generally don't put in any effort into seriously evaluating your publicly available work. I have reams and reams of open source code companies can take a look at, and I've never seen any evidence that any company I've ever interviewed at has looked at that work. That's a result of companies being completely incompetent at evaluation and disrespecting their candida…
Being on the hiring end, it’s less out of incompetence and more of not enough time, and open source code is low signal that the candidate can actually solve problems. If I submit some “open source” code as some proof that I can code, how do you know I didn’t copy the code from somewhere? Also, writing code for the sake of writing code doesn’t tell a hiring manager if the person can take requirements and translate tha…
If your application process starts with a human being—even better a technical human being—reaching out to me, followed by 2-3 interviews, followed by an offer, I am already on your side. If your application process starts with a HackerRank, followed by 2 phone interviews followed by on-site, followed by team matching, I will not be on your side. Oh and if there's random month long gaps in between stages, I will espec…
Is HackerRank so bad? If one does "whiteboard problems", HackerRank says, "boo, whiteboard interviews, just let me code and be able to search on Google, whiteboard is unrealistic!". Now if the company starts with a HackerRank test, that's also bad? I don't get it. Look, a lot of people have good-looking CVs and can't code shit. I don't know about you but my experience was that one really can't hire based on CV alone.…
Besides, if someone is duplicitous enough to have a good looking CV and no coding ability, what's stopping them from just cheating on the HackerRank?
My one and only Google interview went this way years ago. Each round they'd send me more books to study, which frankly I couldn't be bothered to read given the circumstances. My experience ended when an interviewer in round 3 or 4 asked me an obviously scripted question. I answered sarcastically, he got peeved, and I never heard from them again. I'm not claiming I'm Google caliber, whatever that means. Obviously I'm…
The best interviews aren't scripted but are created from around the interviewers expertise but based on the skills and qualities needed for the role.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's true. I want to say that that's Google's fault right? Because not everybody is on the team you're interviewing for (I might be wrong)? At Apple you are interviewed by the team, who presumably needs another person to assist them. Also, regardless of whether or not they want to be there, it's a bad look for the company. Somebody took a day off to talk to you, it's only fair that an interviewer reciprocates
Can confirm everything you said is true and that at Google you'll likely never see your interviewers once you start working there but at Apple you'll be working with your interviewers on a daily basis. It has upsides and downsides, like as you said you had to go through 3 different on-sites (one for each team), but you'll get a good sense of the team before getting an offer (and they'll get a good sense of you). I li…
Can confirm that this is largely true, with an asterisk.
The interview panel (for SWE candidates) is indeed drawn at random, but it's becoming more and more common to conduct fit interviews for specific roles. This is usually done by the hiring manager, in rare cases also involving other people (e.g. the tech lead).
What’s happening is that companies want to completely remove risk from the hiring process. In the real world, you cannot remove risk. You can manage it, but you cannot remove it. Asking candidates to go through 6 interviews before making a decision and not telling them when a decision will be made signals a risk adverse culture that cannot make decisions.
They can also drop you in the middle of the process. With just an email saying thank you. I had a long interaction at Amazon where the recruiter told me they are trying something new. Their goal is to keep the candidates mental health in mind and create a welcoming and open process. I spent 2 hours in the phone where she presented me with different process and what not. I even learned the name of her grand daughter,…
What’s happening is that companies want to completely remove risk from the hiring process. In the real world, you cannot remove risk. You can manage it, but you cannot remove it. Asking candidates to go through 6 interviews before making a decision and not telling them when a decision will be made signals a risk adverse culture that cannot make decisions.
I left a hedgefund interview loop for this reason. I finished the 7th on-site interview. After I left NYC and flew back home, they wanted a 8th ( phone screen ) interview because one the interviewers lost the results. On the one hand, this space’s modus operandi is more data is always better. On the other hand, they have to trade and make decisions in a fast paced environment with imperfect information.
yeah, no. You dodged a bullet with that one.