I don’t understand why interviews in the software I industry are so different compared to other industries. I also get the impression that during many interviews what you’re about and what you’ve done matters very little. All that matters is if you can solve two Leetcode hards in an hour multiple times.
I don't like brainteasers and never propose anything remotely intimidating. After all, interview is a stressful affair as it is there is no need to make it any more so. But I'll never hire a person who can't write a few lines of code on demand either.
I've learned the hard way not to hire the big talkers. Doing is much more important than saying.
Those who can talk AND code are worth their weight in gold.
If you can't code, it's immediately obvious.
Being a good HR person or Inclusivity Officer is much more subjective.
By the way I believe the difference between our ways of thinking goes beyond such politics, and influence our technical decisions as well. Someone who’s all about negative freedom (lack of restrictions) and distrusting authorities (most notably governments), is I think more likely to prefer permissive licences and dynamic typing.
Conversely, those who prefer static typing are more likely to see programming as a branch of applied maths, accept more immediate loss of freedom for a greater good, and believe that a government can be trustworthy even if they may not like their current one.
Currently, tech mostly has more work to be done than engineers to do said work - so the balance is tipped toward the individual. (At least in the US). Once that balance is tipped the other way, the value of Unions will go up dramatically.
I find this an interesting statement because it equivocates self-identification with a socio-economic class (Workers) with a banal statement of fact ("I am employed doing work in a certain field"). The identification with Workers as a class is a political-philosophical stance, whether in the old school Labor vs. Management sense, or Marx's Proletariat vs. Bourgeoisie or some other.
Is it really so difficult to believe that workers in the second sense (the set of people providing technical expertise for money) have a diversity of views on any subject?
> Puzzling, how often people act against their own interests.
Perhaps. As humans we can all be short-sighted. It is also possible that the evils of working in the tech field are somewhat exaggerated. We are paid well relative to the median, we get to work in conditions that would have been considered luxurious across most of human history (temperature controlled indoors, without physical labor), and can pick our level of engagement (working at high finance or in an early startup is trading high risk and stress for the promise of a better payout, working in established businesses allows for fewer hours and less stress).