We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

I wanted to post a snarky response to your comment, and so I went to the Rennaisance web page to look at their vacancies. And lo and behold, no Keras or Kafka in sight. I'm impressed. That's certainly not true for the Facebooks and the Apples of the world.

I'm 37.

> I've worked with many languages both professionally and (very) casually, probably over a dozen. I only put the ones I have mastered on my resume.

And that is excellent and I would consider that perfectly normal and rational behavior. You have more than one. You took the time to explore. It's a field of constant problem solving and lack of exploration of solutions is something that sticks out as a giant red flag because of that.

More experience is definitely better. If I were hiring for a particular language I'd certainly want more than a weekend's experience, but some experience is still better than no experience.

At my last job we interviewed a guy who was about 5 years out of college and had been working in a .NET shop the entire time. He was applying for a ruby position and his only experience was spending a couple of weeks in his spare time building a Rails site. From that minimal experience, we were able to get him to explain why he decided to pursue it, what he liked about it, what problems he was trying to solve, what weaknesses he was trying to overcome that he was seeing in .NET, etc.

Despite the lack of language experience, we hired him based on the "geek gene" that clearly showed problem solving skills and desire to learn. The guy was absolutely rock solid and became one of our most valuable team members within about 2 months time. I believe he's the CTO of a funded startup now if I remember correctly.

If he'd had only Rails and I'd asked him about what weaknesses he saw with the stack...my very next question would have been what he tried to do to overcome those weaknesses. Maybe he answers about what other things he tried within the stack, caching techniques, using jRuby, refactoring in certain ways, etc and as long as that could be articulated it would generally be okay. In general though, seeing how other languages handle the same problem is going to be perfectly normal part of the process...which should lead to having more than one language on the resume.

Technically the same, just with different start dates. But there's a catch: suppose your fiscal year starts Oct 1st, and you request help on August 15th. The answer is often "we're at the end of the fiscal year, but we have approval to start work on that in October".

So if it takes half a fiscal year, depending on when you first say you need it, it can be much longer.

> I've got a Ph.D. in theoretical physics, am very math heavy, created a number of algos for my work over the last 25+ years (in physics sim, bioinformatics, systems management/orchestration, etc.), run sessions at an ACM conference, yadda yadda yadda.

> Two google interviews, and nothing. From what I hear from other people I consider way smarter than I, they also got nothing.

Then you and your friends weren't fluent enough with algorithms. That is the point, they don't care about all of your degrees, years of experience, conferences etc, they care about your fluency with maths and algorithms. This means that even a person with a shitty background can get hired at Google while a person with a stellar background gets rejected. Should you have gotten hired? Probably, but their system lets them find a lot of diamonds in the rough who wouldn't get hired anywhere else which is why they use it.

> The database is incredible

This is something I've heard over the years but I'm not sure if it is still holds true. (I work with Oracle databases daily).

Oracle DBMSes are very robust, to be sure, and you can expect them to run forever. But in my mind other databases seems to have caught up and there really isn't a compelling reason to choose Oracle over other commercial databases anymore (also, Oracle pricing is a big deterrent).

In terms of performance, Oracle's licensing prohibits any benchmarking, but anecdotally I haven't found it to be particularly performant for most of my queries. Oracle used to be known for the innovative under-the-hood algorithmic improvements to the database, but lately I haven't seen anything too exciting, whereas SQL Server is getting better every year with new innovations (columnstore indices, in-memory features, Polybase, in-database Python/R computations, etc.).

> use cases I'd recommend it for over open source alternatives has shrunk to nearly nothing.

I agree, though I would say for heavy transactional use cases, I would still choose a commercial database over an open-source one. However, among the commercial databases out there, Oracle would be my last choice. It has too much legacy crud that have to worked around. The only reason Oracle is still around is because (1) In the enterprise, no one gets fired for buying Oracle. (2) fungible expertise in their services organization ensures business continuity, albeit at a lowest common denominator level.