Hacker News Reader

Comment by ceejayoz | Hacker News Reader

> Sounds so easy, but there is so much depth in so many areas that people can drill into. If someone starts talking convincingly about the OS handling keyboard interrupts or checking for HTTPS certificate revocation during the TLS handshake etc, you know they are probably worth bringing in for a face to face.

If I ask you "what happens when you load a URL" and you start talking about the operating system's handling of keyboard events, I might get the impression you're hopelessly prone to bizarre and useless digressions.

View on HN

I usually say something like "What happens if I type 'example.com' in my browser's address bar and hit enter?"

If someone goes wildly off-track and starts talking about the design of the mechanical switches in the keyboard or I am specifically interested in one area vs another then you can easily tailor it "Ok cool - lets skip ahead to the network aspects" or "lets say I've found the server and downloaded the HTML - now what?" etc.

That said, I often like to let people just talk in interviews unless I am really specifically trying to drill into one area and get specific evidence of specific skills. I might jump in with a "Ah - interesting. Tell me more about DNS" or whatever, but usually I find that the good candidates will have a lot to say, and the less-good candidates either say hardly anything, bullshit, or talk a lot but are not good communicators (confusing explanations/hand-waving/etc) ... or a combination of those things :)

I wouldn't consider it bizarre if a candidate has deep knowledge about something different than what I expected when I started. I'd consider that pretty normal actually, since most people don't work on the same thing.

I wouldn't consider it useless either, unless I'm hiring an engineer for a narrow focus on something (e.g. I want someone that knows BGP), but I've never done that.

I've found that the ability to learn is fungible.

> I've found that the ability to learn is fungible.

The ability answer a question effectively instead of exhaustively is important too, though, right?

Personally, I'd be more impressed by the candidate who answers this by first asking "is there a particular aspect or perspective of this task you're most interested in?", especially if they can highlight the broad aspects involved, and offer to drill down on any in particular.

I’ve more commonly heard the question phrased as “after you’ve typed a URL into the browser bar, tell me everything that happens when you press Enter”, which makes talking about key handling issues more reasonably in-scope.

Anyone who has such depth either:

1-Is a genius and has no problem getting a job, therefore doesn't have to jump through these hoops

2- Or is probably on the autism spectrum and might be hard to work with

Reply on news.ycombinator.com