> I don't have months to study fulltime to cram for the CS trivia challenge
His implication that the reason why he didn't get into google isn't because he's not smart or knowledgeable enough, but because he didn't go to a prestigious school
> No, I don't work there. I didn't study CS in school (much less attend the elite CS schools they are selecting for)
The implication that maths is somehow less important than nebulous concepts like "shipping code within budget"
> "CS trivia" interviews select for people who know the mathematics of computer science, not for people who know how to ship robust software systems on time and within budget.
That interviews are processes which dumb people pass, unlike him
> Their interview doesn't select for "ability to figure things out" at all. It selects for "ability to memorize and regurgitate academic CS curriculum on demand."
And then the comments through which I came to know this guy: when someone makes a good point, he replies that "correlation doesn't imply causation", and then when asked a simple question, instead of answering the question his answer is "I have X credentials, therefore I know the answer very well":
> I have a philosophy degree, and I can say with some confidence that I understand that particular catchphrase pretty profoundly. Not everyone who happens to disagree with you is merely an ignorant barbarian in need of enlightenment. See Karl Popper's theory of critical rationalism to answer your questions about causation.
You see, checking boxes (like getting credentials and academic knowledge) is very important, but only the boxes he's checked.
I'm haven't enjoyed a thread this much in a very long time.