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

Green Lumber Fallacy in Software Engineering

chrisbehan.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 238 posts

Re: Green Lumber Fallacy in Software Engineering

#171

Post by lordnacho »

eropple wrote: post #149
tubby12345 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> what exactly makes you think you'll recognize the opportunity if you haven't seen the algo since school? Because I've seen the algorithm more recently than "school" but perhaps not "last night while feverishly cramming so I can forget it in a week". Because I've probably solved the problem I'm looking at before, if not a neighbor close enough to get me in the ballpark, and I am never going to be without a search en…

This is exactly right. Judgement is what coders really need. Does this thing look like an n^2 algorithm? Let's fix it. Does this thing look like something that someone else has likely come across before? Let's see what they did.

You cover a lot of ground as a coder having skimmed an algorithm book. So I do actually think there's some value in DSA preparation. At the same time I'll admit I don't have any of those things memorized, I just know they are things and can pattern match aka learn when they show up.

You realize the difference when you run into an inexperienced coder, especially a smart person like a quant. They run into a problem and think it's new, and solve it naively.

Re: Green Lumber Fallacy in Software Engineering

#172

Post by capitalsigma »

andrewflnr wrote: post #168
tubby12345 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have said this before: it's group therapy for entitled devs that feel they're entitled to oversized salaries just because they have tenure. Young grads accept the process as is. People that are either happy with their comp or comfortable putting in the work do not lament the process - they just accept it and proceed. Only devs that have been doing it a while, whose salaries have plateaued, that either never learned…

When the status quo is objectively stupid, it is right and just to complain about it. In real life, the ones who will do so are mostly just the ones who it hurts. So what do you want to happen here, if it's not just for devs to shut up about the insanity that's making them miserable?

While we might be able to argue that alternative interview strategies could be better under some set of assumptions, the status quo is clearly not stupid. These companies are hiring thousands of people and pulling in stupid amounts of money. The system works. Could it be better? Maybe, maybe not. But it clearly does work.

Re: Green Lumber Fallacy in Software Engineering

#173

Post by tubby12345 »

lordnacho wrote: post #164
tubby12345 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>least-arbitrary and most accessible ways to jump from one group to the more highly paid one. exactly . i mean like try to apply to IB at a BB and see if anyone even skims your resume without an ivy+ on it. they can't fathom how good they have it because they've never done anything else (which is, of course, what breeds entitlement).

Do people get a FAANG interview with no recognizable credentials? Surely they have to sift the CVs somehow?

of course they need credentials but undergrad at decent state school is much more widely available credential than ivy+. hell FB hires high school grads into their FBU program (for the gap summer between high school and uni).

like you don't get it: go here https://www.hudsonrivertrading.com/careers/job/?gh_jid=35621... and find the dropdown for school ("what university are you currently attending").

Re: Green Lumber Fallacy in Software Engineering

#174

Post by lordnacho »

girvo wrote: post #167
lordnacho wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do people get a FAANG interview with no recognizable credentials? Surely they have to sift the CVs somehow?

For the F in that list, at least, definitely. Though that was because they used a different metric to sift/choose me for an interview (and a decade of experience) despite my lack of tertiary education.

How did you get the interview? They must get a lot of junk applications, what did you write to make them actually look at you instead of direct to trash, and then decide to interview?

Re: Green Lumber Fallacy in Software Engineering

#175

Post by capitalsigma »

tacostakohashi wrote: post #115

I used have a similar perspective as the author, that the leetcode style questions / data structure / algorithm stuff they ask in interviews but seems to have little to do with day-to-day corporate software development is all a big waste of everyone's time. I'm not sure I still do, though. It's true that this stuff rarely comes up and often doesn't matter for most real-world applications... but when it does, it matte…

Friendly reminder that O(2n) = O(n)

Re: Green Lumber Fallacy in Software Engineering

#176

Post by tubby12345 »

sol_invictus wrote: post #169
tubby12345 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Hi! Please refer to the HN guidelines, especially the following section: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. You can find the guidelines here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

No post body was provided.

Re: Green Lumber Fallacy in Software Engineering

#177

Post by tubby12345 »

lordnacho wrote: post #174
girvo wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the F in that list, at least, definitely. Though that was because they used a different metric to sift/choose me for an interview (and a decade of experience) despite my lack of tertiary education.

How did you get the interview? They must get a lot of junk applications, what did you write to make them actually look at you instead of direct to trash, and then decide to interview?

easiest way to shortcircuit the process is to reach out to someone through linked in and ask for a referral. if you're really who you claim to be in your profile here then you shouldn't have any trouble getting an interview.

Re: Green Lumber Fallacy in Software Engineering

#178

Post by capitalsigma »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #25
strict9 wrote: post #9

I think this phenomena is at least partly responsible for why so many devs stay in the same position and why they are difficult to find/hire. Before a tech interview, good candidates will spend a large amount of time doing 'homework' which is just practicing answering the asinine questions that tech interviewers give that is usually barely relevant to the position, if at all. Equally, if not more important, is the ca…

Interesting interview questions might be - download this OSS project - explain to me where / how this API works, how deep does the call stack go. What tests exist for it? - write me the spec for that call. discuss.

Why would you ask someone to do something absolutely trivial?

Re: Green Lumber Fallacy in Software Engineering

#179

Post by andrewflnr »

So a lot of the more complicated DS&A questions seem ridiculous, but I had to check on "inverting a binary tree" to see if it was really as simple as it sounded. It is. Just swap left and right, recursively. It's one of the easiest possible tests of being able to grok recursion[0]. You should be able to do this, even if you're self-taught or early in a college degree program.

Am I missing something? The only excuse I can imagine is interview anxiety, which is a real problem that deserves accommodation (bad explanations of the problem may play a role too, but you should be able to ask good clarifying questions). But if someone is really incapable of this very minor feat of programming, then I'm sorry but an interview process is right to reject them.

[0] Even if you don't literally write recursive Java methods, which you probably shouldn't, understanding recursive logic is critical all over the tech stack.

Re: Green Lumber Fallacy in Software Engineering

#180

Post by sol_invictus »

tubby12345 wrote: post #176
sol_invictus wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi! Please refer to the HN guidelines, especially the following section: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. You can find the guidelines here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Quoted post unavailable.

Hi! Please refer to my previous comment.
Post reply on HN