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

The Last Technical Interview

steve-yegge.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 291 posts

Re: The Last Technical Interview

#131

Post by mgfist »

cryptoboy2283 wrote: post #75

Signals I've got from this post: - Steve's company got acquihired by Amazon, granting him a free ticket in without all the torment of the multi-stage interview pipeline. - It's a well known fact that it's easier to jump from one FAANG to another, so while interviewing at Google he had significant advantage, plus the blog gaining popularity. - All of this has caused a deep down imposter syndrome, which resulted in an…

We must've read 2 different posts.

And even if you're interpretation is correct, you sound pretty rude. You're really gonna mock someone for not liking the interview process and trying to make it better?

Re: The Last Technical Interview

#132

Post by mgfist »

kevin_nisbet wrote: post #55
tptacek wrote: post #13

The gold standard in hiring qualification is work-sample testing. It works fine. You do not need to "make hiring a profit center" or "provisionally hire" or do internships. Work samples done correctly demand less time from candidates than interviews and scale better than interviews. They are standardizable and iterable. What I feel like I'm reading here is someone who has been poisoned by FAANG hiring practices --- a…

I'm a little bit more on the fence with the work sample interviews having designed them and also interviewed through them. I've also done my fair share of "traditional" tech interviews, all at startups, never FAANG. As an interviewer, I much prefer the signals generated through a work-sample interview. I'm much more confident in the hiring recommendation than I get from a 1 hour zoom session. However, if I look at te…

As a recent interviewee, I much more prefer work samples. Less stressful, more in my control and less bound to whether I got lucky and clicked with the problem in a live interview. It's also just much more akin to what work is like, and therefore requires far less studying. The fact that live interviewing is a completely different skill to actual work is a really bad smell.

Re: The Last Technical Interview

#133

Post by BoiledCabbage »

tptacek wrote: post #125
michaelt wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on the details of the work sample test. If I ask you to write me a python function to convert OSGB easting/northing into WGS84 longitude/latitude the task has a very clearly defined scope. If you knock it out in a quarter of the allotted 4 hours, you've saved time. You can't use the remaining time to go further and demonstrate your mastery. On the other hand if I ask you to write me a website for organisin…

Again, the premise is that you're exercising professional judgement. If you can't let a project go until it's perfect to a standard far past what's called for, that is itself signal. Either way: if the project budgets 4 hours, it is on you as a professional to stop at 4 hours.

That's absurd thinking if putting in 6-8 hrs outta what everyone else is doing and what is needed to get you a job.

For all its flaws, part of the benefit of an interview is it's time bound and equal for everyone. Similar to a test.

Re: The Last Technical Interview

#134

Post by BoiledCabbage »

officialchicken wrote: post #83
cryptoboy2283 wrote: post #75

Signals I've got from this post: - Steve's company got acquihired by Amazon, granting him a free ticket in without all the torment of the multi-stage interview pipeline. - It's a well known fact that it's easier to jump from one FAANG to another, so while interviewing at Google he had significant advantage, plus the blog gaining popularity. - All of this has caused a deep down imposter syndrome, which resulted in an…

- "This attracts strong candidates to you, because even your rejections are worth something to them." That's some solid gaslighting right there! You're right Steve, I would rather be rejected by your team than wasting my time by doing something positive with my career.

Yah this was the part that really threw me as well.

"People would be pleased to have a rejection from us. They'd be proud to carry it sounds with them. Lucky them!"

It's funny, I see an article from Yegge and thought "I like that writer, I haven't read any of his stuff in a while, I'll see what he has to say." Then got to the end and see the links to gas town and gas city and remembered it was the same Yegge that while having accurate foresight about orchestration of agents also was a bit off the deep end in gas town.

But the biggest thing I see in this article is it really sounds like "here is the new company I landed at, and rather than make a post about its product, I'm going instead make a post about how terrible the problem it solves really is, and a post on a proposed solution. And the cues what I'll pop up in a few weeks and just coincidentally post about this new company that just happens to solve this problem in the way I've convinced everyone is the right solution."

While I don't have any evidence of this that's the feeling I left with. And if so, then "thought leaders" are a lot more interesting when not "talking their book."

Re: The Last Technical Interview

#135

Post by lesam »

tptacek wrote: post #125
michaelt wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on the details of the work sample test. If I ask you to write me a python function to convert OSGB easting/northing into WGS84 longitude/latitude the task has a very clearly defined scope. If you knock it out in a quarter of the allotted 4 hours, you've saved time. You can't use the remaining time to go further and demonstrate your mastery. On the other hand if I ask you to write me a website for organisin…

Again, the premise is that you're exercising professional judgement. If you can't let a project go until it's perfect to a standard far past what's called for, that is itself signal. Either way: if the project budgets 4 hours, it is on you as a professional to stop at 4 hours.

If you run an interview process where candidates who take 6-8 hours and claim to have taken 4 hours score highest, those are the candidates you will hire.

Re: The Last Technical Interview

#136

Post by bluedevilzn »

cryptoboy2283 wrote: post #75

Signals I've got from this post: - Steve's company got acquihired by Amazon, granting him a free ticket in without all the torment of the multi-stage interview pipeline. - It's a well known fact that it's easier to jump from one FAANG to another, so while interviewing at Google he had significant advantage, plus the blog gaining popularity. - All of this has caused a deep down imposter syndrome, which resulted in an…

He specifically mentioned that Geoworks got Acquired shortly after he was already at Amazon

So, he actually did go through the multi-stage interview pipeline.

Just because you can’t read well, you don’t have to be so cynical.

Re: The Last Technical Interview

#137

Post by tptacek »

lesam wrote: post #135
tptacek wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, the premise is that you're exercising professional judgement. If you can't let a project go until it's perfect to a standard far past what's called for, that is itself signal. Either way: if the project budgets 4 hours, it is on you as a professional to stop at 4 hours.

If you run an interview process where candidates who take 6-8 hours and claim to have taken 4 hours score highest, those are the candidates you will hire.

All these objections rely on removing agency from the professionals applying for jobs. You look at the work sample. You use your professional judgement. You decide if it's reasonable to execute it to what you think a professional standard would be in the time allotted. You make a decision.

This isn't a college application.

Re: The Last Technical Interview

#138

Post by lesam »

tptacek wrote: post #137
lesam wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you run an interview process where candidates who take 6-8 hours and claim to have taken 4 hours score highest, those are the candidates you will hire.

All these objections rely on removing agency from the professionals applying for jobs. You look at the work sample. You use your professional judgement. You decide if it's reasonable to execute it to what you think a professional standard would be in the time allotted. You make a decision. This isn't a college application.

Why would you design a hiring process that scores unprofessional people (by your own definition) higher than professional ones?

Re: The Last Technical Interview

#139

Post by tptacek »

BoiledCabbage wrote: post #133
tptacek wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, the premise is that you're exercising professional judgement. If you can't let a project go until it's perfect to a standard far past what's called for, that is itself signal. Either way: if the project budgets 4 hours, it is on you as a professional to stop at 4 hours.

That's absurd thinking if putting in 6-8 hrs outta what everyone else is doing and what is needed to get you a job. For all its flaws, part of the benefit of an interview is it's time bound and equal for everyone. Similar to a test.

Look, if you want to make people do work samples from an uncomfortable conference room at your office, be my guest. I am pretty confident I speak for the majority of candidates when I say that that my preference would strongly be for the ability to work on this stuff from wherever I want to.
Post reply on HN