751–760 of 969 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure about OP, but there is a tech company that has said it hires people who fail their interviews occasionally to see if their interview process is working. That company is the one that is the subject of this thread.
Can you cite your source? I haven't seen this anywhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with Google's interview methods is that they all select for a very specific type of programmer: heavily math oriented, deep knowledge of obscure Computer Science theory, but not one test on knowledge of languages, architecture, design, or actual real-world problem solving. I walked into an interview with one guy and he literally did not even say hello: he just jumped straight into some problem I had to so…
This explains why Google is incapable of attacking any product that requires an understanding of humanity to be successful rather than just raw data. (e.g., google+, youtube comments, etc)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting. I could look up the date it changed, but it definitely changed because folks didn't like the old way :P. Now, instead, they generally don't recruit (google is too large to not have exceptions) without some specific hiring managers and headcount in mind. They will tell you what those groups are and what they do. So for example, the person i interviewed last week was targeted at two teams. I actually speci…
FWIW, I got told what I was going to work on on my first day, by my new manager, when they picked me up for lunch. Before that, I didn't even know the PA. From what I can tell, that is standard practice for SREs, as SRE is very understaffed, so there is a lot of arguments and back-and-forth around where people are most needed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that's what happened. The questions look too familiar to me, and I've been through the SRE-SWE interview process which is what the top-level comment talks about.
Maybe it's the whole "better to have false negatives than false positives" philosophy Google espouses?
For what it's worth, lots of other companies seem to use almost the exact same process.
I am doing neither of those things. I said it was tempting, because it puts things I've read about G-WAN into perspective (the claims I saw some time back when I was shown a heads-up versus nginx were questionable, and it's an interesting data point). That's why it's an unrelated addendum, and it's completely unrelated to the blog post at all. I have no desire to discredit someone I have never met and whose name I do…
FWIW: As a director of engineering for Google, who interviews other directors of engineering for Google, none of these are on or related to the "director of engineering" interview guidelines or sheets. These are bog standard SWE-SRE questions (particularly, SRE) at some companies, so my guess is he was really being evaluated for a normal SWE-SRE position. IE maybe he applied to a position labeled director of engineer…
> Particularly, when one side presents something that makes the other side look like a blithering idiot, the likelihood it's 100% accurate is, historically, "not great".
I get that you are happy at Google, that you want to defend your employer. But implying the guy's a liar or a fool does not help. If anything, it makes me more likely to believe that Google has something to be touchy about here.
I am doing neither of those things. I said it was tempting, because it puts things I've read about G-WAN into perspective (the claims I saw some time back when I was shown a heads-up versus nginx were questionable, and it's an interesting data point). That's why it's an unrelated addendum, and it's completely unrelated to the blog post at all. I have no desire to discredit someone I have never met and whose name I do…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophasis
Maybe the datacenter burned to the ground. I don't know everything so I'm not going to conclude what's happened, just that I find it odd it's been hard down for several hours now. It's interesting, and it's oddly characteristic of this community to infer that I have malicious intent simply for observing something and finding it interesting.
There are many unkind interpretations of the blog post and I felt I did a pretty good job with restraint in the section even before the additional addendum. I didn't have a lot of sympathy. I didn't accuse the author of lying, or making shit up, or any sort of malicious behavior even before the evil addendum that everybody hates (and many, many non-gray comments nearby have done just that). Why would I suddenly change gears and attempt to destroy a reputation?
I am aware people are inundated with rhetoric like this in several forms of media due to the current political climate and other factors, but Jesus, people really need to put their knives away and start challenging their assumptions of the worst in people or we are all royally fucked. That's letting the rhetorical climate win. Occam: I'm a shady person not-so-subtly and rather hamfistedly deploying rhetorical tactics to destroy someone's reputation simply for blogging about the Google interview process, or I'm just a random dude typing things as I find them interesting. Your pick.
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…
1) His level of knowledge is reasonable for someone who does networking programming full time 2) We are getting description from him. When I interviewed at Google, they asked me to prove that P is equal to NP, and I did, but they said that it took me longer than allotted 45 minutes and I didn't get an offer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can you not know what MVC stands for? It's pretty much a buzzword!
Right. Everyone and their mum know what M and V stands for, right? Now .. C? C is tricky. Please don't ask any further questions about C, will you?