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

491–500 of 534 posts

Re: Nobody gets promoted for simplicity

#491

Post by johnnyanmac »

maccard wrote: post #356
SteveNuts wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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 hate going to work and reinventing wheels all day because the company I work for thinks it's so special that every business function needs a 100% tailored solution to solved problems. I much prefer working somewhere that's able to tailor business processes to conform to existing stan…

I’ve interviewed a few hundred people. Probably approaching a thousand, if not already. An interview is a scenario, and if you aren’t willing to engage in the scenario that we all agreed to partake in, that’s a huge warning sign that you’re going to be difficult later down the line. The point of the question is to have something remotely understandable for both sides to talk about, that’s it.

Depends on the dynamics here. Remember that an interview is 2-way.

Someone giving an answer like "that's a silly, unrealistic scenario" is more likely than not someone who isn't in need for that job to begin with. I'm sure it's something many wish they could say, because the interview pipeline can be very grating. But not everyone needs to play that game.

Re: Nobody gets promoted for simplicity

#492

Post by johnnyanmac »

wpietri wrote: post #478
Quarrelsome wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> MBA-driven business culture is focused on short-term managerial interest, not societal value or long-term business success. This is a common refrain I also believe in and there's an interesting open question that comes up here about whether or not an engineering department should or shouldn't execute an order that intentionally destroys the product for short term gain.

Agreed. To me that's related to the question of minions vs professionals. If I go to a doctor and say, "Hey, please prescribe me a lot of morphine," the answer will be some version of "hell no". That's because doctors, even if you pay for the visit, have responsibilities to the patient, the profession, and society at large. Responsibilities that should not be overridden by money or power. The same is true for actual…

>The same is true for actual engineers, like the ones that build bridges. But although we often call ourselves engineers, a lot of us don't act like it.

Because software is the wild west. Maybe there's some exceptions in medical tech, but there's no license at risk nor ethics assossiation to be ousted from (nor to vouch for us) if one day we receive something like: "hey, we need you to triangulate and calculate the parameters needed to bomb this children's hospital. Get to it".

Either we do it and go along with our day. Or we don't and get moved or fired.

Re: Nobody gets promoted for simplicity

#493

Post by johnnyanmac »

maccard wrote: post #473
wpietri wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd call it an interviewer failure, not an interviewee failure. I absolutely want people I hire to be "difficult" when the moment calls for it. If the scenario is one where the right business/user choice is "let them keep using Google Sheets", then the answer I want is "Google Sheets seems fine to me", no matter what people with more power start out wanting. Too many developers have been encouraged to be minions, not…

> 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…

>do you think that someone saying “can we please talk about a technical topic, here’s an example we’re both likely familiar with” is looking for yes men?

Probably. You say "likely familiar with" but interviews are conducted as if it's a pop quiz. Which I never understood.

If you want to have a decently technical discussion, why not just tell me ahead of time what topic and I come to the interview with research? Why do I have to guess that we're talking about dyanmic programming and be punished if you really cared about graph traversal? (meanwhile the interview is for an embedded programmer. Definitely reflects what you'll really do on the job).

I really hate how few initerviews really felt like they were testing my knowledge related to proper fundamentals and not treated as some pseudo-SAT schlock.

Re: Nobody gets promoted for simplicity

#494

Post by johnnyanmac »

john_strinlai wrote: post #453
theli0nheart wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most real-world scenarios aren't so arbitrary, and hardly any have a "right answer". If I had a candidate that broke out of the box of our interview to give a good answer, and that's not the answer I "want", I'd be more likely to believe the interview question is the problem, not the candidate.

remember that we already did the "Excellent answer, that is what I would do as well, now what if we wanted to build it in-house?" part. the "good answer" was already acknowledged, the "real-world scenario" answer was accepted. the second part ("what if we wanted to build it in-house") is purely hypothetical to gauge how the interviewee would approach the specific technical challenge (shedding some of the "real-world"…

Depends on the dyanmic. If you have an excellent candidate you're trying to poach, it becomes an intervewing problem because you're wasting both you and their time.

If they are a dime a dozen, then it becomes their problem. Whether or not they care it's their problem depends on their circumstance.

Re: Nobody gets promoted for simplicity

#495

Post by johnnyanmac »

docmars wrote: post #427
SteveNuts wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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 hate going to work and reinventing wheels all day because the company I work for thinks it's so special that every business function needs a 100% tailored solution to solved problems. I much prefer working somewhere that's able to tailor business processes to conform to existing stan…

Think of it this way: they're paying you lots of money to build something boring that has a lot of prior art/research available to you for free. This could be the easiest money maker in your life. It's not your problem they're hellbent on building a new wheel. They're willing to pay you! Chances are, you've thought of your own pain points in whatever they've asked you to build and you've now got an opportunity to shi…

But if you're already paid lots of money to work on stuff you actually care about... why bother?

That's the goal of "fuck you" money. You go through the politics and pantomimes until you have the power to stop playning those games.

Re: Nobody gets promoted for simplicity

#496

Post by johnnyanmac »

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.

I guess nobody gets hired for simplicity either.

Re: Nobody gets promoted for simplicity

#497

Post by johnnyanmac »

dilyevsky wrote: post #406
giancarlostoro wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this is really a big interviewer training failure. Vast majority of interviews are pretty bad. I can only remember one or two interviews that did not colossally suck in some way.

It takes a lot of practice to become good interviewer and majority of ICs especially at small shops never get the required mileage. I don't think i really knew what i was doing until like 100 sessions in...

That's a good part of why I want to stay in the IC track. I don't care about having the power to hire/fire people. That's a manager/lead skill in my eyes.

Maybe we have a small conversation with candidates, but I see no reason I need to be quizing people on their talents.

Re: Nobody gets promoted for simplicity

#498

Post by johnnyanmac »

wreath wrote: post #119
Folcon wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like if that's the thought process, that should be stated up front There's a ton of incredibly talented neurodivergent people in our ecosystem who would trip up on that question just because of how it's framed Because how is the interviewee to know if you're testing for the technically sophisticated answer no one in their right mind would ever write or the pragmatic one?

I dont even think you need to be neurodivergent or anything to answer this question like the parent’s cofounder did. From one side, we call ourselves problem solvers, on the other hand we are not satisfied with simple solutions to these problems. If im interviewing for a job, i should be expected to behave and solve hypothetical problems the way id do it on the job. If that screws up your script, you probably suck at…

We also aren't mind readers and interviews are a crapshoot. Some companies do in fact want you leveraging tools and API's in your solutions. Some want to probe your foundational technical knowledge. Ideally they will poke you towards the answer they want, but not always. But few will let you know ahead of time for some reason.

Re: Nobody gets promoted for simplicity

#499

Post by torvald »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxdOUGdseq4 this one comes to mind. A talk by Rich Hickey explaining that “simple” and “easy” are different concepts in software design, and that systems become better when we aim for simplicity (few intertwined parts) rather than ease (things that feel convenient at the moment).
Post reply on HN