4 ms·
Making sure I understand you: When you refer to work sample tests here, that refers to the crypto challenges and things like that that you published at Matasano
by peripitea 10y ago
Making sure I understand you: When you refer to work sample tests here, that refers to the crypto challenges and things like that that you published at Matasano? And you're saying that was much more predictive than the list of facts methods, right?
- tptacek 10y agoThat's what people ordinarily assume I mean, but while our work sample challenges were similar to the cryptopals and Microcorruption stuff, they were not the same, or even derived from them. They were designed specifically to qualify candidates, and in fact predated our public challenges.
- peripitea 10y agoAhh, interesting. Would you mind sharing an example of how they were different, or how the fact that they were specifically for qualification changed the thought process? I'm working on making tech interviewing better and am fascinated by this stuff.
- leksak 10y agoNDAs? Everything I've done yet is proprietary and judiciously covered by various binding legal agreements. I wouldn't breach such a contract nor should you hire someone that would be willing to do so. The sole exception being in the cases where it would be the best for the public interest, i.e. whistle-blowing.
- sgustard 10y agoJust to further clarify, by work sample you do NOT mean an example of previously produced work? This still seems fickle: my dozen years of work output (for example, building and running a site with perfect uptime for millions of users) is not as valid an indicator of my future performance as how I happen to score on some arbitrary timed test?
- tptacek 10y agoAbsolutely not. Samples of previous work are deceptive at the best of times.