Don’t do interviews, do discussions • Hacker News Board

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#211

Post by 01100011 » Mon, Nov 08, 2021, 5:17 AM UTC

brailsafe wrote: post #169

01100011 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll also add that the first couple of years of my code reviews were a bloody mess. It's frustrating to have people who constantly out-think you and provide better ways of doing nearly everything you come up with. I was lucky to get my foot in the door and then built my skills up even more with a lot of pain and extra hours put it to get things right. I'm a better programmer now than I ever was, but I still have so,…

Thanks for your reply. I'm sorry you had to go through that, truly, divorce is a traumatic experience unlike any other, but it does bring some solace to know I'm not the only one who's either been in or is in some sticky situations. Unfortunately I haven't been as lucky in finding something early on to build on. I was about a year and a half into my first position after diploma, and was laid-off, then terminated from…

Mechanical aspects... I grabbed Cracking the Coding Interview. I started doing online coding tests. I started studying modern C++. I was fortunate that I had a relatively easy, 40 hour day job at the time so the nights and weekends weren't too bad. It took a few months. I interviewed with Amazon and it opened my eyes to how much I didn't know(Also, I am so incredibly glad I didn't get that job). I kept studying. I kept interviewing. I tried to think of things I would be expected to know. As an older engineer with a lot of Linux driver experience I had to refresh my knowledge of the Linux kernel's various subsystems. It was a lot of work. It helped that I've been at this game a few decades though so it wasn't like this stuff was exactly new. The algorithm stuff was, but I'd done a fair amount of Linux stuff, C++(but C++ pre 11), lots of C and Python... I wish I could say I still remember a lot of what I learned.

As far as interviews go, I think I tend to interview pretty well when it comes to social skills. Problem solving is tough. I had to do a lot of whiteboard practicing. I probably over practiced this part because, in my experience, you're not really writing tons of code on the whiteboard. Yes, you need to write some, but it's typically short snippets or pseudocode.

I remember telling my interviewers that I didn't think I was a good fit for the job. It seemed more 'CS' than I could handle. I don't know why they went with me. I know the company was rapidly growing at the time so I probably just got lucky. Not what you want to hear, I know.

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#212

Post by Apocryphon » Mon, Nov 08, 2021, 5:19 AM UTC

Jensson wrote: post #201

dtoms wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so there is no glue code at FAANG? Or you have overqualified folks doing, and getting bored, and jumping ship between FAANG every 1.5 years...

There is a lot of glue code at FAANG, but there are a lot of cutting edge libraries and services that you need to understand before you know how to properly glue them together. That is very different from mostly gluing together well documented standard public libraries. From an efficiency standpoint, it is probably a lot cheaper to hire smarter users of those libraries than to ensure all new libraries can be used by…

There are also a lot of developers working on the internal payroll, HR activity scheduler, communications apps, among others. I still remember an interview when someone was expounding about the wonderful opportunities to work on the site that Google employees use to book yoga classes and other offerings.

That said, I understand that in the interest of fairness and allowing equitable access to the highly lucrative RSUs, it's important to give interviews equally rigorous to candidates for the AdWords team as those who end up pushing protobufs all day.

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#213

Post by xenihn » Mon, Nov 08, 2021, 5:21 AM UTC

xyzelement wrote: post #74

CalRobert wrote: post #26

I've finally reached a point in my career where I have a great paying job and like it well enough, and really don't give a shit what interviewers think. Paradoxically, I think I interview a lot better. I can steer conversation towards stuff I care about, and if they insist on being annoying, just thank them for their time and leave. Though this might just be a result of being pickier about who I interview with. If no…

>> "honestly I'm really happy where I am, but every man has his price, what can you offer?" does wonders. I would be very surprised if you say literally this and get results. No self-respecting company or manager is going to invest in talking to you if you describe yourself so overtly mercenary. Obviously, when you're happy where you are, money is part of the equation to get you to move, but making it seem like the o…

>I would be very surprised if you say literally this and get results. No self-respecting company or manager is going to invest in talking to you if you describe yourself so overtly mercenary.

that depends entirely on how badly they need you

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#214

Post by vineyardmike » Mon, Nov 08, 2021, 5:23 AM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #210

swman wrote: post #197

I wish I could a 2-3 hour interview where I (or the candidate) showcase one of my projects and explain the architectural details and decisions in addition to showing any cool/hairy/insane code that got the job done. We can discuss those things and see how to improve them, or laugh at the crazy solutions. Honestly how many times do I need to rehearse these dumbass algos (blah blah blah, so I'll optimize for space with…

This is almost exactly how I hold interviews, except they are usually I've found this technique to be extremely successful. It's possible I may have had some false negatives, but I've never had a false positive. Everyone I've recommended for hiring has been successful.

> I've found this technique to be extremely successful. It's possible I may have had some false negatives, but I've never had a false positive.

This is the impossible problem with hiring. Every interviewer wants to minimize false positives (they're expensive!), but every interviewee thinks they're a false negative.

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#215

Post by benatkin » Mon, Nov 08, 2021, 5:24 AM UTC

Jensson wrote: post #209

benatkin wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both interviews and discussions are conversations. I know lots of interviews are too formal in some ways. I think it might be useful to start formal, get informal but still stick to rules like not asking discriminatory questions, and then get formal again for the end of the interview. Sort of like a feedback sandwich.

> I know lots of interviews are too formal in some ways How do you know that? Maybe those interviews are the right amount of formal. Do you have evidence that they are too formal?

Because I've been on both ends of the interviews and I've seen places where a handful of unplanned questions and comments have gotten useful information and other interviews where no on-the-fly questions were asked and I think it was a missed opportunity. If you were to apply no true Scotsman to what is considered informal you might not include this because it was useful but I'd rather not do that.

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#216

Post by Apocryphon » Mon, Nov 08, 2021, 5:26 AM UTC

flyinglizard wrote: post #122

dtoms wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

threading is your basic question at the end of an interview?

Yes, but really simple. It can get progressively worse though. Like: 1. Make a loop which counts and prints up to N 2. Now make it run in a thread 3. Now make another thread which only prints once this var hits modulo X == 0 etc

Actual fizzbuzz-level questions! Kudos for keeping the tradition alive.

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#217

Post by Aeolun » Mon, Nov 08, 2021, 5:31 AM UTC

sillysaurusx wrote: post #35

arketyp wrote: post #11

I've been involved in interviews for new hires a couple of years now. I'm pretty sure I could have the interviewee talk about cucumbers for 10 minutes and I could determine if its a good hire or not. It's all about getting insight about how the person thinks.

In all likelihood, you've rejected phenomenal candidates and you didn't even realize it.

But did they hire any terrible ones?

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#218

Post by mark-r » Mon, Nov 08, 2021, 5:38 AM UTC

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #119

Slightly OT - on hiring, not interviewing - I recently realized what could improve hiring, and it's simultaneously a great and terrible idea. How does hiring work today? First, the employer sets out a "careers" page (which varies quite a bit, even within the same company, even for the same job title!) which includes the following banal information: A job title, part-time/full-time/remote/location-based, a company val…

It's a great insight, but anecdotally dating sites aren't a great way to find a mate.

I know two people who found their spouse through a dating site. The first was forced to get a divorce after his wife tried to kill him and nearly succeeded - she had some mental health issues that weren't captured by the dating site. The second found his 4th wife that way, and as far as I know they're still good but I haven't quizzed him on his personal life in a while.

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#219

Post by sodapopcan » Mon, Nov 08, 2021, 5:39 AM UTC

somberi wrote: post #159

Been on the hiring side for more than a decade. In addition to other advice in this thread, I would like to add - I treat the interview as my chance to help the candidate pass the interview. This bent of thought may seem subtle, but makes all the difference in meeting the candidate in their terrain, and seeing the world from their point of view. Consequently, the case studies given explicitly state that if the candid…

> I treat the interview as my chance to help the candidate pass the interview

Yes! This is exactly how I treat interviews as well (as the interviewer) and would make a good addition to this already solid article. It really opens candidates up when you treat them like you're in an actual scenario at work. Let them ask for help, google for ideas, ask about different solutions, and ask them what they think of your own solutions. How they deal with these things are the real markers of what they'll be like to work with, not how quickly they can remember how to reverse an array while you sit there staring at them.

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#220

Post by harry8 » Mon, Nov 08, 2021, 5:40 AM UTC

somberi wrote: post #205

harry8 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They really good ones admit to the possibility that there were other better ways to have built, or explain to me the constraints under which they made the choices they did. Does anyone just clam up because you are making slights about something where you don't know the constraints and make inferences about you from that? Most of us have dealt with utterly terrible, opinionated, under-skilled, supercilious and rude…

Yes, what you said exactly happens, but not often enough to negate the value of opening up the otherwise clammed up candidate. Hopefully, the first part where the human human chat happens, the candidate is able to see that the intent is to have a genuine conversation, albeit with a more senior person (aka older) person on the other side. Where I differ from you is the zero-payoff framing. There have been cases where…

Yours looks like a classic "yes but I'm different" response. Maybe you really are different. I couldn't possibly say. Just be aware of it? Or maybe there's a way to have your cake and eat it too? Like put on a stupid hat and say "I'm going to play 'Joe Obnoxious the Arrogant' and be critical, this is not how we talk design around here in general but it cuts us the to the chase about something you know. Stand up to anything you don't like hearing. Back it." Hat on. "Why did you do something so sucky as ..." And just maybe there's like a big smile, but heavy content? Eh just a thought. The way you described it would have me thinking I don't want to be there in the room, let alone working with, beside, for, in charge of, you. But I can't and hear the tone of what you describe so who knows..?