791–800 of 851 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was it general and polished enough to get traction though? What’s its name?
Chubby. It was the product that inspired Zookeeper and all its various incarnations, including etcd.
etcd was inspired by a hash-map more so than Chubby.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is solved by throwing multiple interview questions at the person that are all novel and not derived from the internet. The probability of ALL questions being seened before is very low. This is solved by adding more questions into Leetcode. 1000+ and counting. > So? Doesn't change the effectiveness of leetcode in passing an interview and displaying your ability to learn and solve novel problems. If you have oth…
>This is solved by adding more questions into Leetcode. 1000+ and counting. I know people who did 500 LC problems and couldn't get in google and people who did 20 and got in. The problem set on LC is too large for memorization to work. Google will be giving you problems that aren't on LC and they are actively testing for raw intelligence. >You missed the point entirely. My argument is that many interviews are not des…
Where did this silly notion come from? If they were testing for “raw intelligence”, you wouldn’t have to have any CS knowledge to pass.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ironically, the people who are truly of the highest intelligence and skill level would never choose to work at a place like that. So it's fair to say that what they are actually selecting for are people who are smart, but not too smart. Just like cops, really.
You got data to prove that? More than likely you pulled that statement out of your ass. Some of the smartest people work at google for half a million in TC.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s incorrect. An interview process with true negatives doesn’t mean it isn’t loaded with tons of other false positives. Being good at leetcode has no relation to engineering skills, despite it being a skill in itself.
Where in my comment do I talk about leetcode or false positives? Not only are you incorrect, but you are completely off topic. I am saying Gayle Lackman, the author of Cracking the coding interview and, in the past, one of the board members who decide on candidates in the google interview literally told me word for word that the interview optimizes for IQ. Meaning that there are tons of engineers who can spend a life…
> who can spend a life time studying and never get into google because they are genetically not intelligent enough.
Cool story, but a test that has some true negatives says nothing about its false positive and false negative rate.
Gayle has to convince you that an entire life’s work impacting hundreds of thousands of people’s careers isn’t deeply flawed (because that would reflect pretty poorly on Gayle).
Gayle is the last person you would want to ask if the Google interview process is good. Understand?
Would you ask Donald Trump if his presidential administration is doing well?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also shows how unrigged the whole google interview process is. A whiteboard interview is a "Political connection agnostic" interview.
When interviewing for places like Google and Amazon, your political connections and things like publications/degrees still matter a lot. Good performance on the interviews can be impactful but it's not the only factor. The incredibly biased committees review a lot more than that at google.
The word 'dress' doesn't appear once in this thread and that's a sign of the disgusting state of affairs all in itself It used to be people took care in small gestures like wearing a pressed shirt but now all the auspices have gone awry in favour of this laughable meritocracy No wonder tests of this nature have been devised by people who haven't ever buttoned a collar and it's everyone's fault for not taking the mora…
What? I interviewed at my current location wearing a cargo short and a tshirt. It’s a trillion dollar company and we’re not failing any time soon. Coding interviews aside, no dress requirement is one of the biggest plus and allow people to focus on the thing that matters. I have no idea where you come from that software engineering is helped by dressing up pressed shirts.
I see peoples' opinions here generally falling into one of two camps. The standard way interviews are conducted are either good or bad. I think it's important to consider both the good and bad elements, and then come to a conclusion about what to do in order to move the collective interview process in a better direction. To note, I've never gone through a traditional technical interview, so take what I'm saying with…
I might be mistaken (and I'm no Haskell expert) but I believe your solution is based on a misunderstanding of the problem. > Find the Kth highest value in a binary search tree Your code seems to return _any_ node that is at level K. Where K is 1 for the root node, 2 for its children, 3 for its grandchildren, etc. But unless I'm mistaken, by the wording of the problem, it's looking for the concretely K highest value,…
I think this is an interesting look at ambiguity in wording for computer science terminology. In my mind, height or highest always means node height. The term largest should be reserved for numerical measurement. See the next paragraph for a good example.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the k highest interpretation with an unsorted tree sounds like a simpler problem. If the tree is unsorted, you must traverse the entire tree, sort the result, and then you have your answer. The more challenging problem sounds to me to be what happens when the tree is already sorted. Interestingly, I think the solution for this problem makes my point better than the original problem. Look at how buildHeights breaks the sub problems down. The height (size) of a value in a node at a given level (height) is a function of the heights (sizes) of sub-trees. I included a main method, so you can run the code and not mentally parse it :). What's interesting to me is the commonality in structure between the two solutions despite the problems asking for radically different things.
Note, I probably could not have come up with this solution in the amount of time allotted in an interview because it took a while to find a solution that properly showed problem decomposition.
import qualified Data.Map as Map
data Tree a = Tree a (Maybe (Tree a)) (Maybe (Tree a)) deriving Show
buildHeights :: Tree a -> Map.Map Int a
buildHeights (Tree a Nothing Nothing) = Map.singleton 1 a
buildHeights (Tree a (Just l) Nothing) =
Map.insert 1 a lRes
where
lRes = Map.mapKeys (+1) (buildHeights l)
buildHeights (Tree a (Just l) (Just r)) =
Map.unions [rRes, lRes, curRes]
where
rRes = (buildHeights r)
maxRight = maximum $ Map.keys rRes
lRes = Map.mapKeys (+ (1 + maxRight)) (buildHeights l)
curRes = Map.singleton (1 + maxRight) a
kHighest :: Int -> Tree a -> Maybe a
kHighest k t = (buildHeights t) Map.!? k
main = do
let tree = (Tree 4
(Just (Tree 2
(Just (Tree 1 Nothing Nothing))
(Just (Tree 3 Nothing Nothing))))
(Just (Tree 6
(Just (Tree 5 Nothing Nothing))
(Just (Tree 7 Nothing Nothing)))))
in do {
putStrLn $ show $ kHighest 1 tree ;
putStrLn $ show $ kHighest 2 tree ;
putStrLn $ show $ kHighest 3 tree ;
putStrLn $ show $ kHighest 4 tree ;
putStrLn $ show $ kHighest 5 tree ;
putStrLn $ show $ kHighest 6 tree ;
putStrLn $ show $ kHighest 7 tree ;
putStrLn $ show $ kHighest 8 tree ;
}Earlier quoted context omitted.
You got data to prove that? More than likely you pulled that statement out of your ass. Some of the smartest people work at google for half a million in TC.
You don't have to be mean. Claiming that algorithmic interviews is a proxy for IQ is also probably something that the powers that be at Google "pulled out of their ass". I don't see any data that says it's correlated with standard IQ test scores. I'm skeptical that it is a good proxy since you can specifically study for these interviews. The IQ tests, at least in theory, should be attempted without preparation so as…
>I don't see any data that says it's correlated with standard IQ test scores.
While there's no Data that correlates IQ with algorithm problems. Intuitively the more intelligent you are the better you would be at these algorithm problems.
If IQ measures intelligence and if intelligence determines your ability to perform well on algorithm problems than your performance on these problems correlates with IQ.
To deny the above logic would be to say intelligence has no correlation with IQ and/or algorithms therefore algorithms don't correlate with IQ.
Not every axiom needs to be measured with data. Common sense and intuition also fill the gap where no data exists. Google saying Intelligence correlates with your problem solving abilities and abilities to solve computer science problems is something that absolutely makes sense even if no data to back it exists.
>Leetcode grind for 3 months is not exactly raw ability.
Doesn't matter how long you spend on leetcode. Google will present you with a problem you haven't seen before and there are a huge amount of people who have done leetcode for years and can't pass the interview questions.
If you're a guy who just grinds for 3 months and can suddenly pass the google interview with flying colors than you're the guy that google wants because there are many people who can't do this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where in my comment do I talk about leetcode or false positives? Not only are you incorrect, but you are completely off topic. I am saying Gayle Lackman, the author of Cracking the coding interview and, in the past, one of the board members who decide on candidates in the google interview literally told me word for word that the interview optimizes for IQ. Meaning that there are tons of engineers who can spend a life…
I’m telling you that Gayle is full of shit. They have deluded themselves into thinking they are measuring IQ when they aren’t. > who can spend a life time studying and never get into google because they are genetically not intelligent enough. Cool story, but a test that has some true negatives says nothing about its false positive and false negative rate. Gayle has to convince you that an entire life’s work impacting…
You're absolutely insane if you compare google engineers with the trump administration. Nobody thinks of google engineers like this. Check yourself. Being a google engineer is like getting into stanford or berkeley the prestige is high and I've even asked engineers who've worked in both scrappy startups and google.
The difference to them is night and day; working outside of a google-like company is like dealing with people at a community college... the level of intelligence, work and projects are on a whole different level.
The google interview process is absolutely stellar at creating teams of raw intellectual power. What it is not stellar at is catching all the people who are incredible programmers but bad at whiteboard interviewing... that's it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This is solved by adding more questions into Leetcode. 1000+ and counting. I know people who did 500 LC problems and couldn't get in google and people who did 20 and got in. The problem set on LC is too large for memorization to work. Google will be giving you problems that aren't on LC and they are actively testing for raw intelligence. >You missed the point entirely. My argument is that many interviews are not des…
> Google will be giving you problems that aren't on LC and they are actively testing for raw intelligence. Where did this silly notion come from? If they were testing for “raw intelligence”, you wouldn’t have to have any CS knowledge to pass.
A lot of startups that forego the whiteboard problem with just a conversational interview or take home problem are putting significant less emphasis on raw intelligence.