Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test

Post by bastijn » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 7:00 PM UTC

jcl wrote: post #306

ggambetta wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure how much you're kidding, but... that's true for a subtractive colour system, where you start with a white sheet of paper (i.e. reflects every wavelength) and subtract colours (filter out wavelengths) by painting over the paper with crayons. For an additive colour system, where you start with a black monitor screen, and you add wavelengths, the primaries are RGB.

...and, strictly speaking, the subtractive colors that closest match the typical human eye are cyan, magenta, and yellow -- the "CMY" of CMYK printer inks. Using red, yellow, and blue as subtractive colors gets you a big enough gamut for elementary school color mixing, but it won't give you as big a range of colors as CMY.

Post by kcorbitt » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 7:02 PM UTC

sfrailsdev wrote: post #392

joesmo wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, those are SRE questions, but the fact that Google didn't interview him for the position he applied for makes them out to be even bigger idiots than I had them pegged at for using SRE questions on a director role. Regardless, just having such a stupid process exposed reflects badly on Google. In my own experience, Google isn't even able to call at the scheduled time so, while not the worst interviewers ever, they…

From what I've heard, google intentionally screws with timing, who you will be speaking to, and other factors in order to try to understand how you deal with changes in circumstances.

Post by johndubchak » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 7:03 PM UTC

rb2k_ wrote: post #438

ozgung wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying Google's recruiters don't tell what position they are interviewing for and that they found a 20+ years experienced engineering manager holding patents on computer networking under-qualified for an ordinary site maintenance position. Well, that sounds like a dumb recruitment process.

> they found a 20+ years experienced engineering manager holding patents on computer networking under-qualified for an ordinary site maintenance position. To be fair, I've interviewed people at previous companies that had patents and 15 years at IBM on their CV and completely failed even the most basic system / coding questions. (fizzbuzz style). There are a lot of people that read great on the CV but then it turns o…

Post by btilly » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 7:04 PM UTC

geofft wrote: post #385

btilly wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you imagine Google being totally right here? The disconnect between the questions being asked and the interviewer's lack of knowledge made the interview a waste of time no matter WHAT role they are interviewing for. Take, for example, the sorting question. "Why is QuickSort the best sorting algorithm?" The answer being looked for was, "It has the best Big O." And this is wrong. Its average case is O(n log(n))…

I can imagine Google being totally right because I can imagine the interviewee not accurately remembering the conversation here. (I expect, for instance, that he did not write down the interview as it was happening.) In fact, conditioned on the assumption that Google is right that this guy's experience is better suited for SRE than director-level, it is pretty likely that he did not understand the questions being ask…

Post by rdiddly » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 7:05 PM UTC

jackweirdy wrote: post #59

lordnacho wrote: post #13

I'm amazed he knew things in such detail. I mean who would know just how long a MAC address is? Or what the actual SYN/ACK etc tcp flags are? You just need to know what they're used for, and if you need the specifics, you'll find out with a single search. He seemed to know that as well though. Kernighan for bit twiddling algos, that kind of thing. It's a bit strange to have someone non-technical interviewing a techie…

Medical Recruiter: "What are mitochondria?" Applicant Doctor: "They're double membrane-bound organelles found in all eukaryotic organisms, commonly between 0.75 and 3μm in diameter, that generate most of the cell's supply of adenosine triphosphate" Recruiter: "No. They are the powerhouse of the cell".