There's probably also some genetically encoded differences on risk-averseness (another guess). FAANG is a great gig and is much more predictable and stable.
276 karma · joined October 26, 2010
There's probably also some genetically encoded differences on risk-averseness (another guess). FAANG is a great gig and is much more predictable and stable.
I thought it was just saying, "hey, all these folks are using this open source thing that we're also using/selling".
Reminds me of planetscale.com which has a bunch of logos on their home page, but really those logos are using vitess, not actually using planetscale.
Purposely misleading on both fronts imo. Rubs me the wrong way
Sequoia and a16z effectively force LPs to put money in it.
Even with a tinfoil hat I can’t figure out their endgame, is it really just to make money off of greater fools?
what makes a "physical" patent you consider valid different from a software patent?
I know there is some difference, it's hard to formalize though.
Say someone spent years building a compression algorithm 10x better than everyone else's in some novel way and then tried to capitalize on it. And then google just copied the idea and put this guys company out of business. Isn't that bad?
Seems like they'd have to make them employees under this ABC test.
https://www.copsplus.com/sirchie-narkii-test-07-scott-reagen...
Here's the directions on the website:
Confirm suspicions of cocaine presence using the NARKII Test 07-Scott Reagent from Sirchie®. The improved presumptive test utilizes a three-vestibule system to identify powdered cocaine, as well as cocaine bases, crack and freebase. To administer the test, place a small sample of the suspected substance in each of the three ampoules. The first vestibule will melt, creating a blue solution if the sample is pure powdered cocaine. A cocaine base will form hard blue specs that float in a pink solution. Both forms of the substance will dissolve into a pink liquid in the second container. The third ampule will have a burst of blue, that later separates into a pink over blue solution when mixed with either powdered or cocaine bases.
This is hilariously sad. These cops have 0 training, or are out for blood. I'm thinking Hanlon's Razor.
EDIT: Here's the video timestamp where you can see the packet: https://youtu.be/c7j-Ijo2TYw?t=545
Side note HD bodycams are pretty good, surprised you can see and read this packet that clearly.
Fraud n. the intentional use of deceit, a trick or some dishonest means to deprive another of his/her/its money, property or a legal right.
I haven’t really met anyone yet who could talk the talk but couldn’t write code... I’ve definitely met people who have tried... maybe I have a good BS detector, or maybe I’ve been lucky? All people I’ve hired without doing the BST/linked list/DP problems, Ended up working out great. They probably can’t do those problems still, but they can code a damn good app. Guess it goes back to not caring about false negatives
The big-cos are also leaving a lot of talent on the table -- which makes it silly when they talk about a "talent-shortage." But, they're also paying enough where people WILL game these interviews in order to get the job... So the best argument I've seen for why these interviews work is that it selects people who work hard at learning this type of problem solving, to get the job... which correlates well with how hard they will work at the job.
Having an "objective" process is near impossible... and in fact probably not something one should strive for. Everything we do has humans has intuition behind it, whether good or bad. I think intuition is very important for finding a maximal team, especially a small one.
"Inclusivity" is kind of weird here.. most often you'll want someone with domain knowledge to get a project going quickly.. It's definitely less important for big-cos, but you still end up interviewing for a web job, an iOS job, etc.. so domain knoweledge does come into play.. at least at the big companies I've interviewed for (google, fb, lyft, uber, etc..)
I doubt this process is risk averse... you'll find people smart enough, but you learn little about their character.
Relevancy seems like a joke in your list... unless all you need is people to iterate on a small set of already solved algorithms in slightly different ways. I'd say that applies to zero companies. Except maybe leetcode, which helps people study for these tests.
The process scales well, and is easy to do, i think thats its strong suit... it's mostly effective across a ton of people.
So in summary, I agree that it seems like the best known process for these big companies. but I doubt it's as risk-averse as you think, and if you truly have a talent shortage, it's an artificial shortage created by your interview process. You might need to take some risks on people if you need to grow faster...
That being said, having that big-co process is great for startups! There's a lot of exceptional talent out there that will fail at the big-cos interviews, but will be better than their engineers for your team :) (There's also exceptional talent that will succeed at those interviews too, but would rather work at a startup) It might be a matter of using your intuition to find them... it's definitely a hard game.
I think this recent data-driven trend that is spreading across all realms of companies is poisonous in some areas where it does not belong... Human intuition still wins in a lot of areas, if it's good.
There’s a lot of stuff in there though that I ignore because of the issues you mentioned above. If you just keep it to simple constraints it’s great