Clearly jet.com's primary user base isn't from the tech crowd. Looking at the comments, seems like a lot of people don't understand that Jet's user base is probably value-conscious consumer's that shop for household items on a recurring basis. Without knowing any numbers I'm surprised at all the backlash in the comments.
It's easy to complain and identify problems, I don't really understand why these posts are so popular, but one seems to crop up on HN every month or so. It's kind of tiring to see all this negativity towards something that's done a bunch of good for the world and is fading away. Not everything lasts and that's okay.
Most full stack developers have breadth but not depth. It's incredibly time-consuming to have a complete understanding of the entire stack and no matter what you do, even if you live and drink code and do it all the time you will not be a complete engineer, there is just too much and you will never retain it all. Rather than try to be this ninja superstar that start-ups all look for these days its more realistic to be able to work full-stack but specialize in a particular field. Machine learning and a solid academic background in stats, math and understanding of concurrency will get you just as far as a guy who knows React, Sass, HTML5, Python, Ruby, Go, MongoDB, MySQL, AWS, Redis, Celery, Kafka and Hadoop.
How is pay handled if there is no hierarchy? Who decides how to spend the company's money? This type of recruiting-marketing is almost as bad as Google's.
Not surprised. There are so many more signals you can mine online vs. offline and so ads are actually way more relevant, not to mention becoming more interactive. See Facebook Dynamic Carousel Ads and Google shopping ads. Not to mention the cost model makes way more sense. Not too familiar with offline advertising, but I assume you pay per second or by average number of viewers for a particular timeframe - not nearly as granular and far as online advertising.
Understand that the success rate is probably something like 5% for high tier companies, being 1 of the other 19 that failed isn't anything to be ashamed of.
What's important is that you reflect on things you could have done better in your interviews and learn from it.
programming isn't just about solving problems. One of the reasons I'm drawn to programming and software engineering in general is because it grants me the power to create things and impact others. Of course, sometimes to create those things you will have to solve problems, but I think if you want to create something badly enough and a technical problem is stopping you, you'll find a way around it.
The pitch for user adoption seems to be that it will be cheaper and eco-friendly. But I question that, for example if your solar panels break or malfunction. You will always be paying for energy outside of solar as a back up.
Valuations have been questionable but that alone does not mean we are in a bubble. I'd rather we looked at the amount of funding that has been raised and the amount loss to gauge whether we're in a bubble.
the issue in the start-up / tech world is that things move very fast. What's to stop Google drive from crushing dropbox? Companies need to balance growth and profitability at some point, but it makes sense to focus on growth first.
That's debatable since many companies like Amazon are able to turn a profit by sacrificing growth. Good point though and this information is also available in quarterly earnings reports. The main argument I was making really is that people should take a look at some numbers before having such strong opinions. I believe last I checked LinkedIn was profitable.
I wish people would read company's quarterly performance reports before making claims about whether we're in a bubble and whether company x is worth y. LinkedIn generates a ton of revenue and is very arguably worth its valuation. Just because you don't use LinkedIn or SnapChat or whatever else has a ridiculous valuation these days doesn't mean its valuation is not justified in some way.
Thank you! i'm so glad someone did a post like this, maybe finally we can stop having people say things like 'oh i can build an MVP of Twitter / Instagram in a weekend, its just a photo sharing app'. No. There are a LOT of little features that need to be considered and they all add up (authentication / settings / notifications / mentioning etc etc).
I'm also curious about the bank integration issue, but I'm tired of people saying things like why app x or website y "couldn't be functional in the first week".
have you launched an app that you expect to build a company out of? it takes a lot more work than most people think. people love to over-simplify building software by saying 'its just an app', oh, twitter is just a list of sorted strings, seriously try building a solid, fleshed out product you expect thousands of users to use in 1 week. it's not that easy.
I'm not too familiar with how Television ads work, but online advertising has a clear-cut billing model based on very dubious measurements.
When an advertiser decides they want to bid CPM or CPC they want impressions and clicks from real people, not bots, crawlers, mis-clicks, hidden ads that still count as an impression but is difficult for anyone to actually see, etc etc. Then there is the whole problem with view-based attribution - or attribution in general. The fact that a 1d view attribution is commonly accepted is ridiculous when you think about it, particularly in re-targeting.
Facebook Ads are much more targeted than Adwords. When it comes to targeting, Adwords is actually really bad bad. Outside of Search they can't compete, and even for Search ads you can't do proper gender and age targeting with your ads. Don't even get me started on Mobile.
I wonder if there is a better way of doing code reviews.
For example, a way to for reviewers to just mark a review as 'acknowledged' and submit a list of potential concerns (which may freely be ignored by the author). This makes them much more low friction as the reviewer is scanning the code to understand the purpose of it and help think of potential pitfalls at a high-level, rather than nit-picking apart little details.
Where do you draw the line then? You can google and stack-overflow answers to pretty much any technical interview question that has a non-subjective answer.
BFS is not much more than a loop, a queue and a set to keep track of state (which nodes to visit next and which nodes have been visited). I can't think of many algorithms simpler than that to ask outside of things like fizz-buzz.
If you are arguing for whether algorithms are an effective way to gauge a candidate's skill then you should state that.
They all got through the interview process so I'm pretty confident about 80% of them would be able to do it and 100% of them would be able to implement BFS.
Also yes it's a basic graph algorithm everyone learns, but its inherently much more complicated than BFS which is a simple traversal. It's like bubble sort vs radix sort ... which makes this kind of a loaded question.
I've interviewed at companies like this (Amazon / Google / Microsoft) and they do indeed tell you ahead of time there will give algorithms / data structures / coding.
No offense, but not knowing BFS is kind of a red flag, even if its for a front-end position. It's the most basic graph / tree traversal algorithm there is. And you when you work with the DOM on a daily basis and use libraries that traverse for you its a good idea to have a basic understanding of whats going on under the hood. It's like saying you're a good programmer but not understanding basic concepts about memory management and whether things are stored on the stack or on the heap.
Seems just like click-bait, author makes a point but doesn't really go in depth or explain his thoughts. And it only works because the author tries to mislead you : 'This code smells' Why does it smell exactly? Why should he work at Starbucks?Don't judge a book by its cover, don't extrapolate on a single data point, or a single piece of code, got it.
Sigh, more marketing. Sorry, but at the end of the day any company that does technical interviews evaluates candidates the same ways and asks the same type of questions, having an interview guide that says things like "Instead, let’s open a dialogue. Let’s solve problems together and see what we can learn in the process. Let’s have fun!" is just trying to get more people to apply.
And I'm not slamming algorithms or technical interviews, but its time companies stop trying to dress themselves and say it how it is.
don't think it actually talks much about how it does it at ' scale'. how expensive is it to perform these operations? are images cropped dynamically as they are requested or do they pre-process the images and cache it somewhere.
did they do anything clever to parallelize the process? what underlying technologies do they use...
Guessing it was a nightmare to change it in their codebase so they axed it. Also, increasing the limit would probably add no additional value to their business.
One of the biggest challenges in databases is handling concurrency and sharding, wish this would have talked a bit more about how that changes between a graph database and a relational database.
You should definitely negotiate and consider your strike price as well. For Engineer #2 you should probably be getting at least 0.5%, especially if you have proven yourself. Make the argument that if the company were to exit for 10M in a couple years you would only net ~20K for about 3 years of work, which is less than a regular salary else where.
But why do you think your options would be worth nothing? That in itself is a problem.