Hacker News Reader

Comment by AnimalMuppet | Hacker News Reader

Not "different than basically everyone else". Different from you, which is fine, but jeremymcanally speaks for a lot of us.

> you are shortchanging yourself

You seem to have the idea that a job at "that kind of place" is the only real fulfillment of our employment destiny. That seems a bit narrow-minded of you.

> or wealth is not important to you

This assumes that jobs at "that kind of place" pay much better than jobs at "other kinds of places". That may in fact be true, or at least mostly true. (Or it may be that, to get to the stratosphere of income, you have to jump through those hoops, but other places will make you jump through those hoops and still not pay that kind of money.)

Money is important to me. I am a for-profit enterprise. But it's not the only important thing. It's worth some money to me to work in a sane environment with non-toxic people.

View on HN

Extrapolating that a company with a coding brainteaser interview process unrelated to the job would also have an insane and toxic work environment is incorrect.

There is no correlation.

No correlation between an insane and toxic interview environment and an insane and toxic work environment? I don't expect 100% correlation, but none? That seems rather implausible.

The team and manager dictates what your work environment will be like.

All big tech does these interviews and does match making later.

Smaller companies also just have no guidance on a better interview process.

So, no correlation.

So at a big tech company, you're saying that a technical manager has never spoken to an interviewing team? That these kinds of questions materialized from thin air without any sort of technical oversight.

In the small company case you're saying if there was only one employee, looking to hire you as the second employee. There is no correlation between the one person you work with and the asinine questions you were asked in the interview?

Again I think the point was you are correct that it must be taken with a grain of salt, but to say there is "no correlation" is false. There is no way to prove the impossibility of a situation.

The point of language is to convey a shared concept, is that what you are doing? It seems like we already achieved that, which word choice would you prefer over “no correlation” to convey the same concept that there is not a useful signal to glean from an industry standard interview process

What word choice would we prefer? "Some". As in, "there is some correlation".

The issue isn't word choice. The words express what you're trying to say perfectly well. The issue is that we think you are wrong. Simply choosing different words isn't going to fix that.

I’ll wait for the other person to chime in

The “no” was to emphasis “negligible” correlation

Reply on news.ycombinator.com