61–70 of 322 posts
This cannot be understated. Having inside info on a competitor you already worked at is definitely eye catching to a recruiter. It may not get you the job, but will get you noticed, and is definitely an asset your non-tech interviews if you are discreet about how you discuss it.
In my experience, the most effective way to minimize the odds of a company never responding is to identify someone who works at that company who either you know personally (best) or they know someone you know and you ask for an intro. This allows you to skip the online application black hole. As a corollary, invest in your network and keep good relationships with former coworkers.
This person sounds like they have been in the field for quite a while (since the dotcom bubble, at least), but still mostly did cold interviews? I have been in the field for a bit less time (a little more than 15 years), but I have dozens of former coworkers I would go through before going to cold interviewing. I wonder why they didn’t rely on their network more.
> One company used an IQ test This is interesting. I haven't had that one yet, but last week I had an application with a "personality" test that asked whether I tend to vote for left-leaning candidates or right-leaning candidates. This company was in the healthcare space. GitHub asking for approval for AI to review my resume was a bit of a beat too. I did not give permission, and it definitely left me feeling at a di…
what's the database timeout answer? i would say something along the lines of 5 seconds max.
Or it's a trick question: you should use shared connection pools to minimize the overhead of new connections, and should simply be part of the app startup.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure why you think companies have an obligation to talk to every candidate that applies. It's pretty common to get hundreds of applications for any open role now, and the most visible companies get thousands of applications. A majority of those applications can be disqualified from the resume alone. It would be a massive waste of everyone's time to talk to every applicant.
Never did I say companies should talk to everyone that applies but I do think everyone should at least get a response. Half of my applications are dead air.
I'm sorry you're having a hard time. I'm sure it's very demoralizing to feel like you're applying into a void.
what's the database timeout answer? i would say something along the lines of 5 seconds max.
I lot of times questions like these are to see how someone thinks about problems. What questions do they ask to clarify the problem. I'm not saying this is good question for that, but I wouldn't assume questions have a "right" answer.
If you are job searching, it's dangerous to go it alone. Take this: "An Engineering Leader’s Job Search Algorithm" https://docs.google.com/document/d/19fr_36WOzKlq_zyGP2RdxMEs...
I don't question that is takes hard work, even for more senior devs like the author, but 30 apps leading to 3 offers is a dream. Most early-career people are probably at >100 app with maybe a few interviews and hopefully one offer.
I guess I got lucky in when I started out as a career switcher in 2017. Iirc I applied 6 places, had 4 interviews, got 2 offers. Mind you this was as an effectively junior person applying to mid-level positions. I like to think that having so few interviews allowed me to concentrate my enthusiasm and highest mental energy into the interviews I had, but maybe it's just survivors bias. Since then I've taken 3 interview…
Remember: Finding a job is a sales process. You are selling a $1,000,000+ product (yourself over N years of anticipated tenure). How would you approach making a million dollar sale if it wasn’t called a job? Do that. Your CV or resume is sales collateral. Focus on warm and hot leads over cold calling. Vet your leads with conversation, make sure you really can solve their problems, then give them your sales material.…
One thing I have heard from people is multiple reputable companies have been looking to see if the salary desired is not only inline with the range expected; but they are also calibrating things against what comparable levels/individuals in the team/org make. The norm, in the last few years, has generally been in most cases a new hire makes more than a long tenured individual in the team.