kafkaesq

Or that is to say, "natural".

It's called "zoning", and it's a perfectly natural construct.

And if you're going to be fair, you'd acknowledge that ultimately it presents a set of tradeoffs, with both positive and negative impact.

All of California's inequality problems go back to that.

Inequality is a very complex problem, with many forces and actors at play. Any analysis that attempts to reduce it to a single causal factor will instantly fail.

The spin I'm trying to put on this is -- they exist solely for one reason: to fill a vacuum. The vacuum created by the fact that both sides (mostly the employer, but also candidates) perceive that there's some value for them. Despite massive (and almost overwhelming) evidence to the contrary.

So my take is... to get to the root of the problem, focus on the vacuum, not on the dregs that rush into fill it.

Not using a calendar app to send out invites for interviews.

Or using them, but being too lazy (or just uneducated) to figure out this pesky time zone stuff.

So you're absolutely right -- the list goes on and on.

Though they certainly aren't helping much (and in many ways are quite simply harmful), recruiters are more of a "pain signal" than a problem source as such. The deeper problem is that the whole process (or rather, the lack thereof that many companies practice) itself is so broken, on so many levels. (Or more specifically: the expectations people have from this process, on both sides of the table).

The recruiters? They're just trying to make a living - and doing the best they can with the broken models, and let's not forget, bad data presented to them - again, from both sides. To the extent that they're to "blame", it's just that through their education (read: life choices made), they just don't know any better than to simply accept the process for what it is - and try to milk it for a buck or two.

Same deal (give or take a few name and parameter changes) as with the preconditions for every speculative bubble - and crash - since the beginning of time, basically.

The key distinction is that, mercurial though their price fluctuations may be - traditional commodities such as oil or real estate at least have some intrinsic value, and hence, an intrinsic floor to their valuations. Meanwhile, to the extent that any of these "coins" have such an intrinsic value - if they can even be thought of as "currencies" at all - it is extremely hard to pin down.

Which is Bogle's central point: to the extent that any of these instruments have "value", it's in the belief that ... that value will keep going up, and up, and ever up.

If in fact it's for an actual PhD qualifying exam (or something similar), then this question might be OK.

The problem with the current crisis in interviewing is that it's become almost standard practice to ask questions like this (or its siblings: knapsack, outré graph search or sorting questions, etc) for what are basically run-of-the-mill API monkey / grunt finance programming / etc jobs.

As if the message these companies intend to convey is: "Fuck, we have no idea how to assess these candidates, nor do we have the time. So if we just ask a few gee-whiz questions that 75% of them will fail, then that might be an indication that the other 25% just might be a little smarter. Or at least very good at cramming. Because after all, that's how we got through college, too."

It's just a bit disappointing that media outlets (like TC in this case) consistently allow themselves to get pulled into spinning a lot these as pure cash donations (by emitting headlines that say "XCorp donates $Y" with no other qualifiers), as if that's what they actually were. Which, most of the time, they quite plainly aren't.

-- as the vast majority of BigCorp "donations" to noble causes reveal themselves to be, when you scratch the surface.

http://www.ciesin.org/docs/006-238/006-238.html

Unfortunately it's partially valid. Job ads in particular are (presumably for a want of some other way to whittle down the pile of incoming resumes) considerably biased towards frameworks and gizmos that have been around 3 years or less.

Yes there are new languages and frameworks we have to learn, but if we apply any effort ...

You'd think a lot of these places assuming we're all utterly incapable of "learning", they way they phrase some of these requirement lists.

The only way to "prepare" for situations like these is to go in with a willingness to trust one's own gut - and to simply break off the interview once you start to feel you're not being treated professionally, and that the questions you're being asked are, like the above, completely out of line.†

† Okay, maybe if you were applying for the job of chairing some IEEE committee on numerical standards or something, thiis particular question might be. But I somehow doubt that was the case with this particular role.

It's also -- for the very majority of people -- way too damn short to simply cut one's self off from salary and (don't forget, please), health insurance. Especially when your industry suffers from the illusion that "all the good people have high-paying jobs they love, that you could never possibly woo them away from", and hence "if you don't have a job already, what the fuck is wrong with you? You must really, really suck." Especially when one has family and/or other dependents to support.

You know, stuff like that.

But when one is highly skilled, one does not simply "just quit and get another job".

Think of this as the compiler for a PPL: it allows us to divide labor between the modeler and the inference expert.

Or something like that. Someone from the team could no doubt produce a better explanation.

Even if it is -- "turing complete" != "expressive".

They're rather different beasties, in fact.

This point cannot be underemphasized.

There's no end of stuff you can read online about better practices, these days. But those experience I had working with people who, without so much taking "pity" on me, took me seriously, despite my obvious naivete in certain areas - I'm not sure whether I would have gotten anywhere at all without them.

But access to health care, or (in many neighborhoods) even reasonably nutritious food and safe drinking water - that's quite another matter.

People who work in elite tiers in the U.S., e.g. finance, tend to have a similar mentality. Granted they get a bit more thrown at them in the way of trinkets (e.g. a nice condo or house, rather than a basket of oranges) in exchange for keeping their heads down and not rocking the boat. And they don't have to worry about getting shot or sent to a labor camp (or more commonly, banned from professional employment) specifically. But the basic mentality is basically the same.

It's the fact they chose, as a frontman for this body of positions, a person who's not only blatantly incompetent -- but who may very well get large numbers of us killed (for example, by unnecessarily provoking a confrontation with North Korea) and/or potentially cause extreme, irreparable damage in a whole bunch of other ways -- that's the part I don't get. Or that they can't see this basic disconnect (between the sentiment of their positions; and the reality of the end result of the course of action they advocate in response to this sentiment). When it should be blindingly obvious.

EDIT: Failed to notice that this thread represents the very essence of a "pure politics" discussion, and hence is strongly against site guidelines. Nonetheless your analysis was very succinct and thoughtful.

You know, it just might be... the interviewer who's not so hot at communicating.

Or is "communicating" okay enough, but following a template that's broken to begin with - and pretty much designed to make candidates feel alienated - or at best, highly unenthused at the prospect of playing along with.

And with that attitude on your side -- "if this isn't going well, then by definition, it's the candidate's fault" --- let's just say we're clearly not match.

I can't begin to count the number of impressive resumes that lead to unqualified candidates.

Ditto for job ads leading to unimpressive companies with obtuse interview processes.

Interviews are naturally awkward.

As currently conceived. So maybe it's time to start thinking about them differently.

That might be OK for someone with, say, <2 years experience out of college. But for anyone mid-career or higher, it comes off as silly and condescending, and as not exactly a good use of their precious, irreplaceable time. And more to the point, conveys the exact opposite of the message you should be sending: that you know they're smart and intellectually self-sufficient, already. And that it's up to you to win them over, and convince them that you're worthy and interesting, and that they should jump over, and join your mission.

What's to be confused about?

They don't give a fuck - about you, or your time.

Why? Because they perceive (rightly or wrongly) that there's no business incentive for them to do so.

Either way... if they leave you dangling, or make you answer just a few silly questions too many, and/or sign up for (nearly) unlimited numbers of whiteboarding or hacker ranks sessions, or "take-home projects" they never (or at best only barely) look at, it's because... look, do you think these people have time to think about what they're doing, let alone how it affects the time and patience of those candidates they don't necessarily want to hire... or even, in some abstract sense, their long-term reputation as a company that makes at least some kind of effort to create a not entirely-unpleasant interview process?

Of course not. It's much easier to just throw shit at the wall -- or as it were, at the whiteboard -- and see what sticks.

So that's what they do.

Except when it isn't.

"Unit tests can be one form of code review (that also happens to have the advantage of being automated and repeatable). But should never be mistaken as substitute for actually understanding what the code does, why it does it and how it got that way. Which requires an incompressible amount of effort, analysis, and plain and pure grit", would be another take on the matter.

They also explain exactly what they mean in the caption under the title.