Comment by pc86 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pc86 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I struggled early in my career with interviews. Granted this was 2008-2010 era so the job market was not great, especially in a not-quite-urban non-coastal city where I was for a junior developer.

But something did change when I stopped treating interviews as "convince them to like me" / "convince them to hire me" and started treating them as "find out if I want to work (in order) 1) at this company, 2) on this project, 3) with/for this person." I'm sure part of it is just experience, knowing more of the technical stuff, sure, but when you're approaching it honestly as determining whether you give a shit about the person sitting across from you or the glorified Excel spreadsheet you'll be working on it is a lot easier.

It's a big part of why I hate leetcode interviews and consider them a huge red flag especially for non-Tier 1 companies. If your 90 minute interview is 80 minutes of me reversing trees and writing maze solvers then letting me ask 2 questions while you check your email and Slack on your other monitor I am not learning anything from the process and am extremely uninterested in working for you.

I've had two "Online Assessments," as they're called, in the past couple of weeks and they're even weirder than that now. The request access to my desktop, webcam, microphone, akin to a proctored exam. They don't let you use your own editor, or even leave the window. There is no one there to interact with, ask clarifying questions, etc. It then plays everything back with keystrokes sync'd to video/audio for the reviewer.

If I have to go through that bullshit, I would at least like the opportunity to use it to show how I think, ask clarifying questions even if it is just to show understanding of edge cases, create some small talk, etc.

I think that would be a hard pass for me.

Why would I allow some rando company’s corporate spyware onto my personal computer?

If you’re that worried about me using AI, maybe the interview should be on-site. And maybe it should be relevant to the work I’d be doing, not solving a bunch of leetcode questions.

Or maybe the dystopian future of tech interviews just involves a burner laptop tethered to a burner cell plan.

The future is absolutely flipping fantastic.

If I had that leverage, I certainly would hard-pass, but the market just isn't there right now. I have hands-on dev experience (and the education) in different roles, but none of those roles are solely as a "software developer," so just getting the opportunity to do these goofy things is almost necessary just to get a seat at the table so to speak to begin talking about my background and KSAs. One thing to note is it is all perms given through the browser.

The most recent example for me was even worse- the position was for a web dev asking for experience in C#/.NET. The integrated IDE had all of the usual spyware did not actually compile anything or run any example checks. Then it proceeded, without any brief at all, to ask 7 more 'optional' gotcha-like questions on C pointers and nuances.

It's a terrible time to want to pivot into dev full-time, from the lense of being in the job market anyways.

What makes those questions ok for Tier-1 companies to ask, in your opinion?

I don't think it's ok, but the compensation and competition are both so high they can get away with it. A senior dev at Google in Manhattan will make more than a general practice physician in the same area. This is for a job that you can do with zero credentialing, no degree required, for half the hours and none of the liability. The competition is insane.

Me being on my high horse is not going to change Facebook's hiring practices. But if I get asked to interview somewhere local where they may only be interviewing a half dozen people for a role over a few months, and I stop it early because they start throwing out LeetCode hards, that could be a non-trivial signal for them.

Salary

At a tier 1 tech company the work will be ads/tracking on a global scale. You know that before you enter the door, and if you didn’t like it you wouldn’t be interviewing there.

So much less need for time to decide if you’re interested in working there.

This is a great point. Nobody interviewing at Facebook is unsure if they want to work at Facebook.

The problems FAANG companies and an exceptional group of frontier AI companies are solving are leagues different to the problems regular startups think they are solving.

So it only makes sense for those Tier-1 companies to be asking questions that are related to the a vast amount of problems they face on a regular basis.

Your startup is not Google.

Tier 1 is default alive and thriving. They don't need the smartest people. They need people who do not screw up. Someone who's willing to spend 3-6 months cramming interview questions is also someone who is unlikely to drop the ball.

Startups are the opposite. They are default dead. If they hire good enough people, they die. They need exceptional, hungry people. The kind of people who abhor busywork. Startups will pull much lower quality on average and paying higher rates drastically increases the odds of death. So their hope is to get lucky on an exceptional junior. They're also more willing to fire fast instead of doing some odd layoff down the line.

Basically Tier 1 will bias towards minimal false positives, and startups will bias towards minimal false negatives. Most companies are somewhere in the middle, default dead in 30 years or so.

Tier 1 also has a huge funnel and they hire lots of people so they need it. A lot of junk gets into the funnel because of the sheer size of it. They need that 1 out of 300, so they just layer enough filters to hit that rate.

Tier 2 companies who need to filter 1 out of 50 should not be adopting Tier 1 practices. Startups probably have like 10 applicants and 6 of them can't do FizzBuzz. But they still need to filter, even if sometimes they end up with 0.

> Someone who's willing to spend 3-6 months cramming interview questions is also someone who is unlikely to drop the ball.

I don't believe this at all, they're unlikely to not comply and execute arbitrary commands. Which at least in my experience is orthogonal to whether they're able to actually problem solve or build good things.

This sounds good but I don't think it lines up with reality at parts.

I don't think there's any correlation between "willing to spend 3 months cramming LC Hards" and "doesn't screw up on the job." The speed at which you can figure out time complexity in your head, or how clean your maze solver is on the first try has nothing to do with your skill or ability in managing services in AWS or implementing a Figma design or making sure you're utilizing cache correctly.

> Most companies are somewhere in the middle, default dead in 30 years or so.

Uh, no? What's the evidence supporting this? I haven't seen any organizational literature or research suggesting you have "Tier 1 tech" on one extreme, "Tech startups" on the other extreme, and "every other company" in the middle.

I think the general thrust of your point with regard specifically to Tier 1 tech is spot on - keep on layering more and more filters until you go from 500 applicants to a handful, then make offers to those people. My sibling comment from yesterday says basically the same thing, that it's not "ok," but TC and competition are so high they can get away with it. Home Depot or Kaiser Permanente or JP Morgan can't, despite having their own set of unique and pretty interesting technical problems.

The startup stuff doesn't line up with my experience though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com