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

Becoming a dungeon master for an interview

propelauth.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 181 posts

Re: Becoming a dungeon master for an interview

#121

Post by trashface »

rhymer wrote: post #78
one_buggy_boi wrote: post #33

> When interviewing as a software engineer, for example, you’ll run into places that lean heavily on algorithms interviews. And don’t get me wrong, those interviews can be fun (in the same way that Project Euler can be fun), but it’s not very relevant for most jobs I'm curious what changed around 2015-2016 that led to the current interview process. In the before times the interview was more of a technical conversatio…

I'm grateful for leetcode. Despite my background in electrical engineering, where I specialize in statistical signal processing, I never had the opportunity to delve into algorithm or data structure courses during my college years. In my field, understanding signals and systems, probability, optimization, and numerical computing is very important. Leetcode, in comparison, offers a more confined scope, making preparat…

We might also ask why EE specialists (and indeed half of STEM) needs to fall back to software engineering to get meaningful and stable employment, but capitalism probably does not like us asking these pesky questions.

Re: Becoming a dungeon master for an interview

#122

Post by q7xvh97o2pDhNrh »

prox wrote: post #75
liquidpele wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What changed? Well it was about 2010, The industry became a target for very low quality people to do whatever they could to land the job by faking and lying. All of these annoying interview tricks are just a way to try to filter out all the people (90% of them now) who taught themselves how to talk the talk but couldn’t program themselves out of a wet paper bag. And yes, there are ways to figure it out but it’s reall…

Function wetpaperbag() { Quit() } How did I do?

Not very well, in all honesty.

The function name is pretty misleading, since it looks like a constructor. Even if it's not a constructor, the functionality is pretty far away from the name you've chosen, so it's not a compelling API design either way. How would others use this function? How is this name self-documenting? The decision here is lacking consideration on all fronts.

Also, while I don't immediately recognize the exact language, the style looks off too. The function wetpaperbag is declared in all lowercase, but inside it's calling a function Quit that's capitalized? And, whether this particular language is camel-casing or snake-casing, it's clear that "wetpaperbag" isn't going to pass linting either way.

Overall, strong no hire. Next.

(/s... but only mostly, since the GP's point is that you actually can get a lot out of just asking simple interview questions, which I think we've helpfully proven out here)

Re: Becoming a dungeon master for an interview

#123

Post by paulcole »

abathur wrote: post #116
paulcole wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My willingness to practice leetcode isn't correlated with my interest in new work or the work any given job post describes. The job requires you to practice leetcode in order to get the job. If you don’t want to practice leetcode then you don’t want the job.

Since you're apparently here to play semantics games: if you aren't willing to pay your employer for the opportunity to solve their problems, you don't want the job.

Yes! You’re getting it.

Re: Becoming a dungeon master for an interview

#124

Post by paulcole »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #120
paulcole wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great! Isn’t that the point? That some people who really don’t want the job won’t invest a bit of their time and people who do really want the job will?

> Isn’t that the point? That some people who really don’t want the job won’t invest a bit of their time and people who do really want the job will? Would you rather have an employee who wants the job, or an employee who is good at the job?

The former if they are good enough to do the job.

Re: Becoming a dungeon master for an interview

#125

Post by Geisterde »

Spivak wrote: post #61
thdc wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like to think it went like this 1. Interviewer: If you're a good software engineer, you can answer basic algorithmic questions. 2. Interviewees: Practice algorithmic questions so you appear to be a good software engineer. 3. Interviewer: People are just studying leetcode to get jobs, what can we do? Ask harder leetcode questions. 4. Other companies: Let's copy them since they're successful. In short, the questions…

It's actually great on the hiring side — you can skip all that bullshit and because tryhards are all prepping obscure CS questions just having a conversation about technical topics has become signal again. Measure something people aren't trying to game and you get a better assessment, go figure.

The highest correlation I see to success in my field is a background of PC gaming. They tend to do better on interviews in the technical regard, all the flashy certificates go out the window of you cant tell me what you would do if a computer wont post.

Re: Becoming a dungeon master for an interview

#126

Post by fhk »

meowtimemania wrote: post #52
one_buggy_boi wrote: post #33

> When interviewing as a software engineer, for example, you’ll run into places that lean heavily on algorithms interviews. And don’t get me wrong, those interviews can be fun (in the same way that Project Euler can be fun), but it’s not very relevant for most jobs I'm curious what changed around 2015-2016 that led to the current interview process. In the before times the interview was more of a technical conversatio…

I recently started interviewing again and haven't encountered many leetcode style questions this time around. I'm noticing lots of contrived questions that relate to some feature the company had to build.

This is my favorite, “we want you to work for free”

Re: Becoming a dungeon master for an interview

#127

Post by reaperman »

adamgordonbell wrote: post #17
neilv wrote: post #3

> Interviews should be as close as possible to the work that the candidate would do if they join. Interviews should give information to both parties about what it would be like if the person joined. Simulating a typical work task, as this article describes, might give you some of that. Though important to remember that's far from all that's relevant to either party. A recently fashionable Leetcode hazing, on the othe…

I feel like leetcode is a Goodhart's Law thing. When nobody was cramming for it, then at some places it was a good measure. Coding is more like weight lifting sometimes then running. There are some weights that some people just can't pick up. And so if the job involves lifting things that are usually light but occasionally heavy, then a squat becomes a good measure for candidate. But once everyone knows a big squat i…

> they use amyl nitrates

I think you meant ammonia. Poppers would cause an acute decrease in blood pressure which would be counterproductive during the lifting phase with a heavy weight.

Re: Becoming a dungeon master for an interview

#128

Post by wernercd »

trashface wrote: post #121
rhymer wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm grateful for leetcode. Despite my background in electrical engineering, where I specialize in statistical signal processing, I never had the opportunity to delve into algorithm or data structure courses during my college years. In my field, understanding signals and systems, probability, optimization, and numerical computing is very important. Leetcode, in comparison, offers a more confined scope, making preparat…

We might also ask why EE specialists (and indeed half of STEM) needs to fall back to software engineering to get meaningful and stable employment, but capitalism probably does not like us asking these pesky questions.

"capitalism" Is it in the room with you? Do you need assistance? Did the evil capitalism touch you in your naughty place?

But seriously... everything uses computers and programming ties everything together. I don't think you have to be a grand master programmer but having those skills make you a better employee.

The real pesky question is why do you think socialism, communism or the alternatives to "capitalism" wouldn't benefit from having people able to use better tools? Productivity multipliers would help "The People" and The Masters in charge of the authoritarian dictatorship alternatives to "capitalism"...

Re: Becoming a dungeon master for an interview

#129

Post by jstarfish »

plagiarist wrote: post #93
jstarfish wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm terrible with names, but that's my own problem. I don't do voicemail or pronouns either. The rest of it is being ostracized for refusing to acknowledge the black floor tiles are lava. Redefining the reality of others is literal brainwashing. In fostering this sort of environment you're running a cult, not a company.

It's funny to whine that, "redefining the reality of others is literal brainwashing," but you obviously feel quite comfortable redefining the reality of the people you misgender for them.

Nice try. "Misgendering" happens to be my favorite example of modern sophistry.

When you're afflicted with gender dysphoria, technically it's you who's engaging in misgendering since you refuse to recognize your own gender (or its pronouns). It starts with you.

But self-loathing doesn't make for a compelling persecution story, so you project it onto me. It's my fault. I'm hurting you, by not validating your beliefs. This is actual fucking coercion. I thought we're all about consent these days? I don't consent to you mindfucking me.

You make it sound like I go out of my way to rub it in people's faces, but I don't. I just want to be left alone. I'll call anybody whatever they want, if they address me as Oh Glorious Leader in return.

Re: Becoming a dungeon master for an interview

#130

Post by jmspring »

dr_kiszonka wrote: post #80
hx8 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It all started in a few years earlier. Google had determined that there was a strong correlation between understanding fundamental computer science and being a strong software engineer, so they began testing for computer science fundamentals. At the time lots of companies were trying to mimic Google's success and it quickly became an industry standard. People began just studying how to answer these questions. The pop…

One of their hiring criteria is cognitive ability. If it correlates with strong proficiency in CS algorithms, then this might have been why they focus on it when hiring engineers. (I am not saying that this strong correlation exists.)

The correlation doesn't exist. A large segment of the Leetcode-uber-alles practitioners are also the ones that are obsessed with total compensation as the ultimate measure. It was a mistake by google and others to focus purely on this , but we are where we are. Many of the leetcode fanatics can't deal with real world issues in software or operations.
Post reply on HN