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

Nobody gets promoted for simplicity

terriblesoftware.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 534 posts

Re: Nobody gets promoted for simplicity

#481

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

taeric wrote: post #390
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that of course, the "simple" Door Desk was actually more expensive than the equivalent from Ikea, had no real additional functionality and took more time to put together. Which somewhat muddies the metaphor ... (amzn 94-96)

I confess I assumed that the spirit of that award was more in "using what you have" than it was in making a simpler solution? They definitely over indexed on how clever the door desks were, though. It is funny how much people assume quality from appearances, though. Same for costs.

There was/is a Home Depot and an Ikea equidistant from every Seattle amzn location. Bezos just though the door desk was "cool", and didn't both to cost compare with Ikea till after many of the door desks had been built. They were undoubtedly stronger than the Ikea equivalent, but that is unlikely to ever have been an issue.

Re: Nobody gets promoted for simplicity

#482

Post by QuiEgo »

munchbunny wrote: post #248
bilsbie wrote: post #73

I had an interview question. What would you do if two different people were emailing a spreadsheet back and forth to track something? I said I’d move them to google sheets. There was about five minutes of awkwardness after that as I was interviewing for software developer. I was supposed to talk about what kind of tool I’d build. I found it kind of eye opening but I’m still not sure what the right lesson to learn was…

Having been both the interviewer and the candidate in this kind of situation, this is really a big interviewer training failure. The general way to handle this as an interviewer is really simple: acknowledge that the interviewee gave a good answer, but ask that for the purposes of evaluating their technical design skills that you'd like for them to design a new system/code a new implementation to solve this problem.…

“Good answer! Now, assume we’re in a regulatory environment where we can’t use Google for legal reasons, and must develop a solution in house. With that new constraint, how would you solve the problem?”

Re: Nobody gets promoted for simplicity

#483

Post by QuiEgo »

bilsbie wrote: post #73

I had an interview question. What would you do if two different people were emailing a spreadsheet back and forth to track something? I said I’d move them to google sheets. There was about five minutes of awkwardness after that as I was interviewing for software developer. I was supposed to talk about what kind of tool I’d build. I found it kind of eye opening but I’m still not sure what the right lesson to learn was…

I usually open up technical questions with a disclaimer like “I reserve the right to tell you that you can’t use a library or similar if I think it makes the problem too easy”. Like it’s a make believe problem and it’s something you can finish in under an hour, a certain about of understanding that this is a test not the real world is needed.

Re: Nobody gets promoted for simplicity

#484

Post by nomel »

wildekek wrote: post #95
bilsbie wrote: post #73

I had an interview question. What would you do if two different people were emailing a spreadsheet back and forth to track something? I said I’d move them to google sheets. There was about five minutes of awkwardness after that as I was interviewing for software developer. I was supposed to talk about what kind of tool I’d build. I found it kind of eye opening but I’m still not sure what the right lesson to learn was…

The lesson was that sometimes the interviewee can be more competent than the interviewer and they should run.

The interviewer should be less competent. That's the goal. The only alternative is that everyone trends dumber as the org grows. Usually you're trying to hire an expert in something. It can't be a necessity that the interviewer is an expert in all things they need to hire for, or even most competent in their field! You want your org to increase competence.

And, I think that's what causes the slow demise of corporations: the "hire dumb" is much easier. It's hard to get a read on intelligence/competence/skill if you're less of any of those, so, on average, orgs do get dumber. What's the best shield against stupidity? Bureaucracy! :D

Re: Nobody gets promoted for simplicity

#485

Post by kermatt »

tyre wrote: post #91
bilsbie wrote: post #73

I had an interview question. What would you do if two different people were emailing a spreadsheet back and forth to track something? I said I’d move them to google sheets. There was about five minutes of awkwardness after that as I was interviewing for software developer. I was supposed to talk about what kind of tool I’d build. I found it kind of eye opening but I’m still not sure what the right lesson to learn was…

So my cofounder was talking to Stripe about an acquihire (this was after I’d left.) As part of it, he had to do a systems design interview. He got the prompt, asked questions about throughput requirements (etc.), and said, “okay, I’d put it all in Postgres.” He was correct! Postgres could more than handle the load. He gets a call from Patrick Collison saying that he failed the interview and asking what happened. He e…

They failed him because of that one question?

Re: Nobody gets promoted for simplicity

#486

Post by kermatt »

oceanplexian wrote: post #297

Ironically, this article is "over simplifying" the problem. In the FAANGs I've worked at, engineers who come from scrappy companies and implement hacks (Like the example of emailing spreadsheets around) undermine the business and will cost the productivity of thousands of people. However, at the startups I've worked at, the folks from big companies that try to implement a super complex thing (e.g. exotic databases, o…

The right answers are usually something in the middle. Don't email spreadsheets (i.e. make copies that drift), don't use K8S unless it is a technical requirement.

For some reason, this middle ground gets the smallest population.

Re: Nobody gets promoted for simplicity

#487

Post by kermatt »

tylerrooney wrote: post #92

I worked at Amazon 2005-2008 as a Software Dev Engineer. To hammer home company culture, there were two awards which could be awarded at the Quarterly All-hands meeting * The "Just Do It" Award which recognized someone just fixing some obvious problem at was in front of them but not responsibility * The "Door Desk" Award for frugality, named in honour of the basic door-frame-four-leg desk everyone worked on. In many…

> "Door Desk"

"Dorsk" (not the Jedi).

Re: Nobody gets promoted for simplicity

#488

Post by glaslong »

BurningFrog wrote: post #456
9rx wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"That does sound like something nice to have. However, recreating Google Sheets is a substantial undertaking. First, we need to evaluate the business case for duplicating something that already exists to ensure that there is a net benefit in doing so. Second, we need to determine if the business has sufficient capital to see the project through."

That's a good real world answer, but a terrible SWE interview answer.

Indeed, the proper response is now to vibe code 14 semi functional gsheets clones in parallel

Re: Nobody gets promoted for simplicity

#489

Post by maccard »

wpietri wrote: post #480
maccard wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when the moment calls for it In an interview when you’ve been explicitly asked to discuss a topic to have a technical discussion about something is not when the moment calls for it. Doubly so if you’ve been asked twice. If you’re not willing to put aside being technically correct when you’re trying to show off your best self, it’s pretty likely that when things get tough, you’ll behave the same. > unless of course…

When I ask an interviewee a technical question, what I want is an answer that is correct technically. If I want them to give me a different kind of technical answer, then I think it's on me to ask a question that actually requires what I'm looking for. It's not hard! All the Stripe interviewer had to say is, "Ok, great. It sounds like you have a good sense for system capacity. Now let's add another zero to all the lo…

> I am, just to be clear, not defending people being willfully obtuse or contrary jackasses

The comment I replied to said:

> "now what if we wanted to build it in-house?" > "Well I would probably go home and work on my resume because that's a fool's errand."

That’s not a different kind of correct, that’s just being a jackass.

Re: Nobody gets promoted for simplicity

#490

Post by maccard »

Quarrelsome wrote: post #469
maccard wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question isn’t should we use gsuite, it’s can we talk about a tech problem. If you don’t understand that you’ve failed the interview.

and if you don't understand my position then you've failed to interview. Some people just seek reasons to disqualify candidates and I think that's a pretty basic approach to interviewing. Remember, we all have a cognitive bias to hire ourselves and part of improving interviewing process is about trying to mitigate that by creating an environment where the interviewee can show the best of themselves, which may not nec…

If the interview goes:

> What would you do if two different people were emailing a spreadsheet back and forth to track something?

> I’d use google sheets

> Excellent answer, that is what I would do as well, now what if we wanted to build it in-house?"

> Well I would probably go home and work on my resume because that's a fool's errand.

I’ve not failed to interview. The candidate has been a jerk. Could I have asked a better question? Sure. Could the candidate not have sneered at it and thrown a strop - definitely.

Post reply on HN