How to Interview Engineers When You're Not Technical

Re: How to Interview Engineers When You're Not Technical – Part II

#91

Post by marcinzm » Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 10:53 PM UTC

ggambetta wrote: post #86

marcinzm wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The context is companies with 30+ engineers. At that point you're going to want some form of formal project methodology that allows everyone to co-exist somewhat peacefully. Generally, the results otherwise are varying level of dysfunctional.

I worked in a handful of teams at Google and none used Agile (I believe some do, but they're a minority), and very little formality besides a weekly team meeting. From what I hear, FB and other big companies are in a similar situation. Sure, you can stretch the definition and say they're dysfunctional ("omg lol google kills projects") but you can't deny they're successful.

First of all, I used the word Agile in my response zero times. I used the words formal project management for a reason. Agile tends to be assumed but if someone asks then either you can infer what they actually want or you're going to be a terrible hire in a startup anyway.

Second of all, as people love to say here, your small or medium sized company isn't Google so you shouldn't make decisions as if it was. What works for Google does not necessarily work for random startup or small company number 7521. Every small and medium company I've seen without a project management process was a disaster. Partially because, unlike Google, they can't throw 10 million at a problem and shrug if they waste 9 of it or cancel the whole thing in 2 months.

Re: How to Interview Engineers When You're Not Technical – Part II

#92

Post by crimsonalucard » Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 4:08 AM UTC

greghausheer wrote: post #87

jrumbut wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's funny, I came to the almost opposite conclusion that the obvious answer was that everything is tradeoffs and compromises. I suppose very easy things like consistent indentation width might be done perfectly in a codebase, but any non-trivial thing always could be "more X" or "less Y".

"I came to the almost opposite conclusion that the obvious answer was that everything is tradeoffs and compromises." Probably the smartest answer there is.

No this is not true. Definitely not smart either. Not everything in the universe is a nice yin yang tradeoff, this is a philosophical and scientific mistake. There exists in this world solutions to problems that are the most optimal.

When humans think in terms of design tradeoffs they are thinking in a domain where there exists no theoretical or mathematical technique to find the optimum. This does not mean a technique can never exist, it just indicates a lack of knowledge. The keyword is design. How do you design the best looking website vs. how do you design the shortest distance between two points? I would say for the later, we have enough knowledge and theory to say that the shortest distance between two points does not need to designed... it can be calculated.

Design implies alternative designs and tradeoffs due to the lack of techniques to determine or find an optimum. Calculation implies greater knowledge.

Re: How to Interview Engineers When You're Not Technical – Part II

#93

Post by kthejoker2 » Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 7:02 AM UTC

crimsonalucard wrote: post #92

greghausheer wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I came to the almost opposite conclusion that the obvious answer was that everything is tradeoffs and compromises." Probably the smartest answer there is.

No this is not true. Definitely not smart either. Not everything in the universe is a nice yin yang tradeoff, this is a philosophical and scientific mistake. There exists in this world solutions to problems that are the most optimal. When humans think in terms of design tradeoffs they are thinking in a domain where there exists no theoretical or mathematical technique to find the optimum. This does not mean a techniq…

Most real world problems have constraints that render global optimums moot. Usually opportunity cost, but also risk, experiential components, satisficing ...

In fact, any interview problem with a global optimum is worthless for evaluating candidate's ability to handle ambiguity or demonstrate capacity for creativity, second order thinking, communication ...

Expecting candidates to lead with absolutism like in your post os a good recipe for finding Brilliant Jerks.

Re: How to Interview Engineers When You're Not Technical – Part II

#94

Post by crimsonalucard » Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 2:33 PM UTC

kthejoker2 wrote: post #93

crimsonalucard wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No this is not true. Definitely not smart either. Not everything in the universe is a nice yin yang tradeoff, this is a philosophical and scientific mistake. There exists in this world solutions to problems that are the most optimal. When humans think in terms of design tradeoffs they are thinking in a domain where there exists no theoretical or mathematical technique to find the optimum. This does not mean a techniq…

Most real world problems have constraints that render global optimums moot. Usually opportunity cost, but also risk, experiential components, satisficing ... In fact, any interview problem with a global optimum is worthless for evaluating candidate's ability to handle ambiguity or demonstrate capacity for creativity, second order thinking, communication ... Expecting candidates to lead with absolutism like in your po…

Dude, the entire field of Machine learning is an attempt to find a global optimum. It is an attempt to turn what is otherwise a design problem into a calculation.

To say that global optimums are moot or don't exist is categorically wrong. Global optimums and trade offs exist in equal measure everywhere. I value good judgment in both.

Catering to one extreme is unwise on every level.

>Expecting candidates to lead with absolutism like in your post os a good recipe for finding Brilliant Jerks.

First off I never said or implied this. My post is just saying that not Everything is a design tradeoff. Second off are you implying I'm a Jerk? Did you just call me a Jerk?