Panic at the Job Market

The best interview I've experienced was done exactly like this. Candidates were given a scaffolded, incomplete program, written on the company's internal platform (which you'd be using on the job), and a list of features/tasks to implement in it. Each feature built off the previous ones, and ramped up in difficulty as well as in the breadth of platform features required to implement it.

Documentation for the libraries was provided. Throughout the interview, you could ask some of the folks on the team questions about using the libraries, for some help with debugging, stuff like that. The interview closely resembled actual day-to-day work on the team. (I'll note also, that this company's platform had an open source variant; and so candidates could also tinker with it before the interview).

The team eventually hired me, and then I got to see it from the other side. The positive and negative signals both seemed great: some candidates refused to read the documentation, or even ask for help; they were a clear non-fit. Candidates who completed the assigned tasks, or at least most of them, and communicated well with the team, were usually given an offer, and when hired turned out to be great collaborators.

Please hire me based on how awesome I think I am, not how awesome you think I am.

That summarizes most of his hiring related grievances.

From the title and the first couple paragraphs I expected a deep dive into macroeconomics and the tech industry. Rather, its a rambling rehash of the complaints about interviews and hiring which have made the rounds on HN and Reddit over the last 15 years. Credit where its due, his lived experience is enough to make the article thought provoking. Just not educational.

> Often we’ll get people complaining about excessive interview loops, but when they describe the process it adds up to around 4-5 hours total.

I’ve researched and negotiated the terms of buying small businesses in less time.

4-5 hours is excessive for most jobs imho. You might be able to justify up to three or so for a C-suite position, 1-1.5 should be enough for most lower level positions, and anything beyond that is just institutional masturbation.

Collect a work sample, talk to them about work to see if they are like-minded in terms of working norms and habits. At that point, if it’s a hell yeah, then go with it. Otherwise it’s a pass. If a new hire significantly underperforms, just help them find a better place inside or outside of your org during the probationary period. If they are just leeches, then fire them mercilessly during the probationary period and revisit your hiring process.

>The worst feeling is comparison. Comparison is the death of happiness, as they say. I look at my own place in the world compared to people who just started at Apple or Microsoft 20 years ago then never left

I found this quote and I can understand, but if you are also lucky enough to know such people, couldn't you use such connections to help bolster your own career?

While there are people out there making millions joining the right company at the right time, imo I would be happy with making 150k at my next position (depending on the area of course, I really wish WFH was still popular to allow people to live in areas with a lower cost of living), an amount which the author seems to thing is not much. To be fair though, the also has more experience and seniority over me based on his article

> if you were smart enough to see all the problems in all your past jobs but those companies still went bankrupt, maybe you weren't actually the ideal employee you think you are.

If you're smart enough to see all the problems but the company goes bankrupt, maybe are were actually just the ideal employee.

For the vast majority of roles, tech and otherwise, hiring managers prefer to hire someone who'll ask questions like, "how high?" when told to jump, and not, "no" and "why?".

You should be senior enough to do the job well but not senior enough to make your boss feel like they're junior.