311–320 of 345 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Overzealous pattern matching is not criticism.
Ok, why can I not just read the prompt that went in? Why do I need to read a verbosified version of it? What's the point?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of these are easily faked and/or not able to be shared. You think I can share code from FAANG? Also, hiring is very expensive for those first few months at big tech. It’s also very morale draining to see your peers fired constantly - which is what would happen. Morale at faang is already hitting rock bottom due to the mandatory yearly+ 10%+ layoffs.
Everything could be faked. Leetcode interview as well. Background check is a thing. >> It’s also very morale draining to see your peers fired constantly Also cannot agree, firing from the probation period does not affect morale. It is rather expected some people cannot make it through.
> In the software engineering world, we exist on a ladder. We call this ”Leveling”. Career is a made up game. There are no true levels or ladders in life that you have to chase. Nobody will care or remember what you did or what level you were given enough timespan. Take the bits that you want (money, skills etc) to live life, but don't get too caught up trying to win the game.
Totally agree. In my 25 years in tech, there were no meritocracies. I came from a simple working class upbringing and experienced upward mobility into the white collar class. I differentiated myself by always finding ways to solve problems, that others weren’t willing to do. People expected things to be done a certain way, I expected nothing and did everything myself my own way. I never had mentorship that taught me…
Optimising YouTube viewing time is a terrible goal to devote your life to in my opinion. I'm not sure if OP ever thought too deeply about what he was working on, but addicting people to a screen is not one I consider a value to society.
I can’t wrap my mind around those goals, because (IMHO) the number one thing that would improve viewership is entirety outside of YouTube’s hand: content quality. So the author can only ever move needles that are thrice removed (i.e.: improving backend tools -> creators have more time -> creators create better content) or are statistical coincidences (we made the buttons round -> viewership went up 0.2%).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Totally agree. In my 25 years in tech, there were no meritocracies. I came from a simple working class upbringing and experienced upward mobility into the white collar class. I differentiated myself by always finding ways to solve problems, that others weren’t willing to do. People expected things to be done a certain way, I expected nothing and did everything myself my own way. I never had mentorship that taught me…
For once, I wish I could upvote more than once.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So exactly what kind of interviews do you suggest that a company do at scale to hire people who will make $300K+ a year? Just talk them?
Interviews tuned properly for the position are almost always 95% talking with a decent trial/probation period. If they have the general credentials and can talk competently about the detail work, there is no benefit for either party doing these asinine code challenges. The problems that spawn these leetcode barriers are WAY better solved at the source. Prob 1: the interviewer doesn’t know shit about the actual role.…
It's not a group engineering meeting. Unless it's big-tech hiring of fungible worker drones, everyone in that meeting should be trying to get more signal about the others as individuals.
I've been the "1" in 2-on-1 three times recently, all for startups. For me, it's hard to think about the hard-thinking questions, and also be finding rapport and getting signal from two different people at once. I'd much rather spend twice as much of my time, to get each person 1-on-1, no additional cost to them.
Two of the recent 2-on-1 interviews were on videoconf, and, with the videoconf setup they chose, I couldn't even see one of the people most of the time.
The other interview was 3 people in tiny conference room/closet (the size of what used to be a one-person cubicle), for an hour, so it was especially stuffy and crowded with 3 people, and a great way to get Covid.
Besides more people complicating the situation, people tend to speak candidly with me 1-on-1, but are less likely to do that if their colleague is in the room or on the call.
Here's an intuition: Imagine you were a company interviewing startup candidates, and HR suggested saving time by you interviewing two candidates at once. It would be awful, and you wouldn't be able to get much read off of either (other than to tell if one or both were sharp-elbowed). So why do it 2-on-1 in the other direction, unless you're saying it's not important for a candidate to get signal about the company and colleagues?
> In the software engineering world, we exist on a ladder. We call this ”Leveling”. Career is a made up game. There are no true levels or ladders in life that you have to chase. Nobody will care or remember what you did or what level you were given enough timespan. Take the bits that you want (money, skills etc) to live life, but don't get too caught up trying to win the game.
Totally agree. In my 25 years in tech, there were no meritocracies. I came from a simple working class upbringing and experienced upward mobility into the white collar class. I differentiated myself by always finding ways to solve problems, that others weren’t willing to do. People expected things to be done a certain way, I expected nothing and did everything myself my own way. I never had mentorship that taught me…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interviews tuned properly for the position are almost always 95% talking with a decent trial/probation period. If they have the general credentials and can talk competently about the detail work, there is no benefit for either party doing these asinine code challenges. The problems that spawn these leetcode barriers are WAY better solved at the source. Prob 1: the interviewer doesn’t know shit about the actual role.…
Excellent points. I just wonder about the 2-on-1 interviews. I think they tend to double-down on the one-sidedness of typical interviews. It's not a group engineering meeting. Unless it's big-tech hiring of fungible worker drones, everyone in that meeting should be trying to get more signal about the others as individuals. I've been the "1" in 2-on-1 three times recently, all for startups. For me, it's hard to think…
I had a strong recommendation (halfway to hired, before they even met me, with a colleague's favorite ex-manager/mentor) to take over engineering and technical leadership, from a startup's technical CEO.
After I passed his interview, he had me do a 3-on-1 interview with the 3 engineering team members.
They all seemed a little awkward with the circumstances or format, and none opening up.
I passed the 3-on-1 from the CEO's perspective, and he gave me a written offer.
After I confirmed with him that one of the 3 existing engineers didn't want the role (I'd gotten a little leadership role vibe from him, despite 3-on-1), I asked to meet with at least one of the engineers 1-on-1, so I could get a better feel for the team.
The CEO pushed back hard on that, because what you see with them, is what you get.
We don't all get our intuitions the same way. Maybe the CEO could've gotten all the info he needed in a 3-on-1 videoconf meet&greet, including all the info I would get from 1-on-1. Or maybe I could've gotten info that he couldn't have, yet he seemed to be rejecting that possibility.
It might've been a great situation, but I ended up not taking it, arguably traceable to a low-info n-on-1 interview.
Two questions: 1. Is it normal for someone who graduated in 2018 tell “with over 13 years” of experience? 2. He quit Google but not got hired anywhere else?
Author here. I worked at internships and smaller contracts in HS and college. But I've been coding since the start of highschool with coding competitions and jobs that helped my neighbors and my grandparents. Even in retrospect, even though they were small or not as full time as what I did now, I would still count them as learning career experience And I have been hired somewhere else. I was really close just to quit…
Then again, “fake it till you make it” is known to work too, so you do you. Definitely wouldn’t judge you in this economy to employ every trick in the book.
Yet, still a trick