31–40 of 73 posts
The real question is why people care so much about working for Google. If you're good, then you'll find success with or without Google, and if you're not good, then why would one complain about Google not hiring them when you don't even believe in your own ability. It's bizarre, really.
Falsehoods programmers believe: all the best devs work at the Big Five.
Isn't inverting a binary tree just this? (That's what some people seem to think, when I search for the problem.) 1> (defun invert (tree) (if (atom tree) tree (list (invert (cadr tree)) (invert (car tree))))) invert 2> (invert '(((1 2) (3 4)) ((5 6) (7 8)))) (((8 7) (6 5)) ((4 3) (2 1))) Here I modeled the binary tree using two-element lists as the nodes (thus using two cons cells where one would do) for the sake of p…
I would have written the same. I have no idea what Google understands by "inverting a binary tree", but to me it looks this. "Recursively swap left with right." Now just convert that to an inferior language, like java or python, so they can understand it.
A Google interviewer expects you to ask questions and clarify any simplifying assumptions you may have made.
For eg: Are you assuming right at the beginning that the entire tree fits in memory? If so, Google interviewers expect you to clarify that at the beginning. They might later ask you to modify your solution for cases where your assumptions don't hold true.
From what I know, the biggest mistake people make during tech interviews with the big 5 is directly jumping to solutions without probing deeper. At the scale at which the big 5 operate, many routinely simple assumptions can be problematic.
He just got unlucky. It's always luck of the draw with job interviews. Just like those poker players that say they should have won the hand. I'd like to try this in an interview: how would you re-root a binary tree such that the ordering of the elements remains the same, but the root node of the tree changes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
source?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14952574
Either option and many more are possible. All the ones I can think of suggest that Google's hiring and transfer process needs work.
That is way too many interviews. I don't think I would have lasted that long. After the second one I probably would have found the third one too much of a pain. But if you really want something I guess you do what it takes.
The real question is why people care so much about working for Google. If you're good, then you'll find success with or without Google, and if you're not good, then why would one complain about Google not hiring them when you don't even believe in your own ability. It's bizarre, really.
Big personality , decent coder ... but google level tech guy? Good enough to be among the best (the kind google go for) I guess not? Lets see who picks him up but if he gets some kind of manager position at a startup we can be assured hes more talk then tech.
Hard worker and organized results driven guy maybe, but some people dont really have the skill to be great engineers.
This guy got to the big leagues and realized that outside of the OSX world we care about hard engineering performance and scaling optimizations, not so much the rounded corners and glossy ui.
Google makes alpha-zero, what are they going to do with a guy like Max. Even he admits his application is not feature complete, so hes not even a "finisher".
I think they let him down easy , saying it was not a good culture fit , instead of telling him like it is, hes just not good enough.
Question: Do you think there is not a person at google with a worse personality than Max? I bet there are and I bet they out perform all of us in this thread. If they "should" have hired you , they would have hired you Max. They would have found a place for you.
But ultimately, should Google have hired me? Yes, absolutely yes. I am often a dick, I am often difficult, I often don’t know computer science, but. BUT. I make really good things, maybe they aren't perfect, but people really like them. Surely, surely Google could have used that. No, Google shouldn't have hired him, and he made it very clear why: he's a dick. Related discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1…
Google shouldn't have... followed their own guidelines?
To say someone should have, is to say they would regret it.
Google isn't a person. And they most certainly will not regret a thing...