Interviewing at Canonical
hachyderm.io
hachyderm.io
What a silly take; generally brains aren't fully developed until the age of 25 or so and some people mature earlier than others. Whatever you were or weren't at 16 says very little about you if you're over 30, or even in your 20s. Never mind environmental factors which are often much harder to deal with at young ages, such as a less-than-ideal family situation, being bullied, and things like that.
But according to Mark a ~5-year window defines who you are for the rest of your life... Seems like a classic case of someone thinking their own experiences (or their perception of them, which may not necessarily align with reality) is the only possible path to be a good person.
I always assumed these questions about high school were mostly to writing capability more than anything else and that the content doesn't greatly matter. Well, guess it does :-/
In the EU not graduating high-school opens the window for job opportunities such as garbage disposal, cleaning floors and package delivery. Probably McDonalds too.
Shuttleworth is asking a legitimate question. That person should be happy they even got an interview, most HR departments would instantly screen them out.
And no one has ever asked me my high school certificate in the EU, for any job, including software dev.
He sounds like someone who peaked in high school.
A third problem is that the quality of the .deb's they package is low and decreasing rapidly. For instance, they don't seem to understand how to properly configure update-alternatives anymore.
I'm guessing all the above can be explained by establishing hiring bars that aren't good predictors of job performance, and then letting it play out for a decade or so.
This is something that bothers me with all the containerisation yes.
If there is a big vulnerability in libssl found now, you just update your distro once and boom, everything that uses openssl is fixed.
Now with all these snaps you have to wait for every maintainer to incorporate the update in their package when they feel like it. It's a mess.
Canonical currently uses this "psychometric test" as a decisive critera for candidates
https://www.thomas.co/sites/default/files/2019-08/GIA-Exampl...
And from their own words "they take it very seriously".
The result is exactly what you would expect of this kind of test. It is unsurprisingly utter rubbish.
It asks the candidate to solve "important cognitive tasks" and translate that to substract 2 number as fast as possible, identify letters as fast as possible or rotate an image as fast as possible.
I would honestly be curious to know how anybody with a functional brain can believe 5 seconds that this can be an important selection criteria for a senior software engineer, a SRE or an engineering manager.
Is the goal suppose to be identifying the best human-based GPUs ?
I wonder how many top talents they lost in early selection process due to this kind of garbage.
Id argue its probably quite hard to find a 'top talent' that has an IQ thats substantially outside their desired range. Obviously theres variance and there's other factors that contribute to someones success in their career, but their raw intelligence is certainly a large input thats worth considering.
Its nearly impossible to train someone with an IQ of 80 to be a senior software engineer.
and please dont respond to this comment claiming IQ is a useless metric. its not, and thats been very clear for decades.
I'm glad you settled the debate with a single sentence.
https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-...
What you're really looking for is "able to do really hard things at all".
Presumably, companies that value a high IQ do so because they think it's an indicator of ability. But perhaps I'm wrong here. What other reason could they have?
Ah, so those education questions are there for precisely the BS reasons it seems like they're there for.
Why go through all that trouble of scheduling a meeting between the candidate and the CEO if they knew they weren't going to accept the candidate based on something they knew near the top of the hiring funnel?
Surely the CEO has better things to do with his time? Or perhaps not?
People are spending 30-50% of their time in hiring tasks, reviewing resumes, interviewing candidates, while the success rate is close to what you see in spam operations: 1 out of 10000 applicants get an offer. High-paid vicepresidents spend more than half their time pushing resumes and clicking around the recruitment page instead of having meetings with their teams.
This is all as desired by Shuttleworth: he is convinced he has just reinvented or disrupted HR and is entirely devoted to this. It’s not a waste of time for him - it’s what he lives for.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38128573
~3 rounds with a little homework. No leet code. Regular interview questions. The interviewers were polite.
I guess that makes sense given how closed and hypocritical "the maker of the world's favourite Linux system" is. Employees having any actual interest or passion in what they are supposed to be doing would cause issues.
Meaning you had resourceful parents, went to a good school, tuned your high school life for college applications, and etc.
Who wouldn't want a friendly chat with the CEO before an offer?