solarmist

So you’re saying that none of those roles could be cross hired in the early 2000s between any of the other roles?

That’s the point I was trying to make. Not that the software didn’t exist or people weren’t doing specialized applications.

Which was caused by cost cutting measures, MBA disease, in companies to begin with.

We’re just seeing the end of the cat and mouse struggle that’s been going on since the 60s. And massively accelerated in the 80s.

It’s unfortunate for companies though because they’re the ones that will lose out in the end when all the experienced people start retiring and they have no one to hire.

It’s an untenable position to not train people, period. There is no schooling you could go through that would educated junior dev to the level of a senior dev. And it’s the same for any other role. Experience is not optional.

My understanding is even in the early 2000s it was pretty much just firmware versus desktop software with a small niche for Mac developers.

Edit: my point was not that specialized software applications didn’t exist. It was that people were expected to be able to jump from stack to stack when they change roles in a way that has disappeared from modern job applications.

This has been knowledge for the top orthopedic surgeons for decades (at least 20 years). But for your local orthopedic surgeon, it depends on when they graduated whether they know this or not.

I don’t feel like it was. Every role is hyper specific nowadays.

And most refused to look at anybody deviating from their ideal background in my experience.

I've had both I've had ones that only tell you what the next interview looks like. Unless you specifically prior it out of the recruiter's hands.

And then there's people like me who have been at startups, midsize companies, tiny small businesses and FAANGs.

Not everyone at a FAANG is purely motivated by the amount of money that they can get.

I’m looking for a smaller company because I’m tired of the FAANG mentality personally.

In theory, you can do code reviews without larger context if the code is carefully selected. Apparently, some companies think any badly written code from their code base can just be selected though.

I loved the idea of code reviews interviews, i've had several good ones, until yesterday when I had my first bad code review interview.

They asked me to review a function for a residential housing payment workflow, which I'm unfamiliar with. From an actual snippet of their bad production code (which has since been rewritten). In Go which I've never used (I've never professionally used the language that doesn't have error handling built-in, for example).

I had to spend more than half of my time asking questions to try and get enough context about Go error handling techniques, the abstractions they were using which we only had the import statements to and the way that the external system was structured to handle these requests to review the hundred lines of code they shared.

I was able to identify a bunch of things incidentally, like making all of the DB changes as part of a transaction so that we don't get inconsistent state or breaking up the function into sub functions, because the names were extremely long, but this was so far outside my area of expertise and comfort zone that I felt like shooting in the dark.

So just like any other interview style, they can be done very poorly.

I hear this all the time, but I have yet to experience it. It may be because the small companies that I interview with are all startups, but I have yet to be able to get a call back from any other kind of small company. And the startups I do interview with have a full FAANG interview loops.

There seems to be a weird selection bias that if you're FAANG or FAANG adjacent these small companies aren't interested.

No, it means having a security clearance. It has a very specific meaning.

Having been thoroughly investigated by the FBI to not be an enemy or a threat to the United States.

The only reason we don't eat dogs or cats is because they don't taste good. Predators don't make for good eating. They have to work too hard physically for their food. It makes their meat tough.

That said there are places where dog is eaten usually as a stew because that makes it more tender.

The only reason we don't eat dogs or cats is because they don't taste good. Predators don't make for good eating.

That said there are places where dog is eaten usually as a stew because that makes it more tender.

We can't compare against the ideal though we can only compare against the world we have. So the comparison against dirt is pretty apt.

Does anyone remember his username on hacker news?

It appears that the stories shared are being posted to his Facebook account.

https://www.facebook.com/share/1K49KzbZN7/

This is great. I just started learning piano this year. I'm going to ask for this for Christmas.

If you've done a fair amount of leetcode problems you can recognize them and feel their levels. Then afterwards you can search and confirm your expectations.

It is not uncommon to have either verbatim or lightly modified leetcode problems as technical challenges for interviews. I think Facebook now makes it standard you need to be able to solve 2 leetcode medium questions in a 45 minute interview.

I would agree with you if there was a way to ensure feedback isn't interpreted as a personal attack or a shortcoming.

So, this assumes you can separate feedback from motivation too. Authentic praise (as opposed to generic praise) is more effective in the long run because it reinforces motivation and allows time, experience, and in ideal situations, achievable high standards to take care of negative feedback.

Unconditional positivity destroys moral, but I think the effect on psychological safety is more nuanced.

Your example is certainly a lack of psychological safety, but only you can speak to the causes of that.

A common reason would be a lack of accountability, which led to unconditional positivity as a veneer over the lack of constructive feedback.

There are more jobs, but also a lot more weird stuff is thrown in. Overall, the industry treats it like hiring a single bad engineer will singlehandedly and inevitably sink your entire company.

And the "boring" jobs copy their recruiting practices from the FAANG companies. So you have a 5 round interview that could ghost you any time.

The current problem is that huge numbers of companies are in a hiring freeze, but still posting jobs on job boards, so you have to submit countless resumes to get a human to contact you.

So yes, there are a lot more jobs available, but every step seems designed to discourage and frustrate job seekers.

Dang. This is definitely a SPAM account.

Dang this looks like SPAM.

Edit: Nope. Definitely SPAM.

What's X86S? I'm not familiar with it.

I agree, but I think it'll take far longer to happen than people expect. Kids are making it all the way through college (at state or regional universities) without needing to adjust this approach at all.

These kids are going to be convinced that it's a valid strategy. I'd be surprised if many didn't claim they were being unfaily discriminated against in their first couple of jobs instead of fixing the behavior.

Sadly (for me) this now needs an annotated version for younger reader to fully understand.

I'm starting to feel old on a more and more frequent cadence.

It could (and ultimately I agree it's probably what they should), but that's not what people are seeing juniors do. They're seeing them blindly trust the AI tools and think they don't have to learn what they're doing. So they're building at best a fragle understanding of the code their writing.

There's being stable, but poor and there poor without the stability of being able to consistently afford housing. Even without the added curse of bad parenting unstable parents.

It’s like audiophiles if you’re convinced of something not amount of persuasion or facts change your mind.

It's not the only way

On the flip side many times people start something they don't like (being forced or doing it with a friend, etc)and grow to like/appreciate it later.