3 ms·

Am I the only person who thinks algorithmic/big O puzzles are kind of fun? Like they're super high stress when you're interviewing, but basically everything is

by qmalzp 11y ago

Am I the only person who thinks algorithmic/big O puzzles are kind of fun? Like they're super high stress when you're interviewing, but basically everything is super high stress when you're interviewing.

rdtsc 11y ago
> Am I the only person who thinks algorithmic/big O puzzles are kind of fun? They are fun. So company ends with a lot of people who can implement red-black trees and so on, especially under high stress. That could be good in some case. I can't see it that good in general. "So customer reports server keeps restarting every Thursday, can you take a look?" "I am not sure how to do it, but I can invert a binary tree in under 10 minutes though, would you like to see that?"
- dominotw 11y ago
  >am not sure how to do it, but I can invert a binary tree in under 10 minutes though Most ppl completely forget how to invert a binary tree in about 1 week after the interview. Which makes the whole interview process based on that stuff even more absurd.
geebee 11y ago
They are kind of fun. I enjoy the problems in "Cracking the coding interview". In fact, preparing for a google interview (no offer) actually reminded me of why I like programming so much. You need to think deeply and creatively about interesting problems, rather than spending all day trying to figure out how to fix "errno 64: gcc header missing"… My misgiving about these interviews is that they are really exams, without the examiner/examinee accord that I think slowly evolved over time, in institutions that are exam-heavy, to provide balance and fairness to both sides. Think about exams at a university: most (but not all) of the time, formal exams come with a number of rights for the person taking the test. It must be consistent, it must be graded fairly, it can't be capricious, it must be related to the coursework, if you fail, you have the right to know why you didn't pass, you get feedback, you get a lasting credential, you have a "study path", and you have a grievance process if you feel things were biased, unfair, or inappropriate. I understand that companies are tight lipped because of liability issues, this means applicants take a high stress five hour exam, but with nearly no feedback. Supposedly there are numerical scores in a database about candidates, but they are not allowed to know what those scores are. Unfortunately, I do think this amounts to an exam without the rights that evolved over time to make sure the process wasn't excessively abusive to people who sit for exams. Lastly - I tend to agree that a company is free to set up what hiring process it likes, within limits. If a month long paid audition/consulting gig is how they'd like to do this, and they accept that this means they will lose out on people with stable jobs (often people with children or other dependents), that's fine. But what do you think about companies that do this but then start complaining to congress that there is a terrible shortage of workers? Should we take them seriously?
fsloth 11y ago
Personally, I enjoy a high stress induced buzz occasionally given that the situation is plausibly survivable. The problem with social pressure targeting me is that it incapacitates those areas of my brain that deal with anything related to maths and programming completely. I'm not kidding here. I read math books for fun and do recreational algorithmic design. So my brain is primed pretty good for technical stuff. Any stress where I'm "tested" somehow where the "correct" solution is to amaze the interlocutor with my fantastic analytic skills? It's like I've had a brain surgery. That stuff is just not accessible. I don't feel terribly troubled by such situation but my brain apparently does. The same does not happen with working in actual products where people are concerned in finishing a product on time and not evaluating me. Pressure is way higher in those situations but the pressure is to get the work done and not impress anyone by trying to outguess which theoretical approach is most dear to them. For this reason Fizzbuzz is the most technically demanding task I would demand of anyone if I were to lead an interview. For fresh graduates? Look at their grades. More seasoned folk? Have they got stuff done and do they appear smart? I would emphasize this "getting stuff done part".

by qmalzp 11y ago

rdtsc 11y ago

> Am I the only person who thinks algorithmic/big O puzzles are kind of fun? They are fun. So company ends with a lot of people who can implement red-black trees and so on, especially under high stress. That could be good in some case. I can't see it that good in general. "So customer reports server keeps restarting every Thursday, can you take a look?" "I am not sure how to do it, but I can invert a binary tree in under 10 minutes though, would you like to see that?"

dominotw 11y ago
>am not sure how to do it, but I can invert a binary tree in under 10 minutes though Most ppl completely forget how to invert a binary tree in about 1 week after the interview. Which makes the whole interview process based on that stuff even more absurd.

geebee 11y ago

They are kind of fun. I enjoy the problems in "Cracking the coding interview". In fact, preparing for a google interview (no offer) actually reminded me of why I like programming so much. You need to think deeply and creatively about interesting problems, rather than spending all day trying to figure out how to fix "errno 64: gcc header missing"… My misgiving about these interviews is that they are really exams, without the examiner/examinee accord that I think slowly evolved over time, in institutions that are exam-heavy, to provide balance and fairness to both sides. Think about exams at a university: most (but not all) of the time, formal exams come with a number of rights for the person taking the test. It must be consistent, it must be graded fairly, it can't be capricious, it must be related to the coursework, if you fail, you have the right to know why you didn't pass, you get feedback, you get a lasting credential, you have a "study path", and you have a grievance process if you feel things were biased, unfair, or inappropriate. I understand that companies are tight lipped because of liability issues, this means applicants take a high stress five hour exam, but with nearly no feedback. Supposedly there are numerical scores in a database about candidates, but they are not allowed to know what those scores are. Unfortunately, I do think this amounts to an exam without the rights that evolved over time to make sure the process wasn't excessively abusive to people who sit for exams. Lastly - I tend to agree that a company is free to set up what hiring process it likes, within limits. If a month long paid audition/consulting gig is how they'd like to do this, and they accept that this means they will lose out on people with stable jobs (often people with children or other dependents), that's fine. But what do you think about companies that do this but then start complaining to congress that there is a terrible shortage of workers? Should we take them seriously?

fsloth 11y ago

Personally, I enjoy a high stress induced buzz occasionally given that the situation is plausibly survivable. The problem with social pressure targeting me is that it incapacitates those areas of my brain that deal with anything related to maths and programming completely. I'm not kidding here. I read math books for fun and do recreational algorithmic design. So my brain is primed pretty good for technical stuff. Any stress where I'm "tested" somehow where the "correct" solution is to amaze the interlocutor with my fantastic analytic skills? It's like I've had a brain surgery. That stuff is just not accessible. I don't feel terribly troubled by such situation but my brain apparently does. The same does not happen with working in actual products where people are concerned in finishing a product on time and not evaluating me. Pressure is way higher in those situations but the pressure is to get the work done and not impress anyone by trying to outguess which theoretical approach is most dear to them. For this reason Fizzbuzz is the most technically demanding task I would demand of anyone if I were to lead an interview. For fresh graduates? Look at their grades. More seasoned folk? Have they got stuff done and do they appear smart? I would emphasize this "getting stuff done part".