3 ms·

> And that's exactly why I no longer use this question This matters? Any other question stinks just the same, like my example of balance a b-tree in-place. >

• beagle3 9y ago
  > What is it you desagree with? "Getting to the point where you have to start to worry about Big O is the hard part, not the other way around." Or maybe I misunderstood what you meant. I think that unless you are doing mostly "do this and then do that" style programming (e.g. CRUD), you have to be aware of big-O, or you're going to hit a lot of walls. In things I do, anyway. > I don't see how the interview style you seem to advocate finds people who are good at understanding complexity. Complexity here being the well defined CS term about space and time, of which big-O is the customary notation: How your resources (time, space, etc) grow with the problem size. I suppose you meant complexity as some measure of cohesion/details/size - in which case, you are correct - this kind of questions do not address it (others in my interview do, though I admit it is much harder to judge one's view of other-complexity in an interview). > Some of us work in toxic environments that are hostile to women and people of color but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, right? Some of us make unrelated remarks, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, right? What exactly were you trying to say here? > I would wager that everyone is interested in learning something new or deepening an existing skill in whatver job they take no matter the time period. Then you would lose this wager. There are so many people who just want to clock in, do their job, clock out and get paid. Yes, even in technology. And you know what? that's fine; They are not lesser people because of that - they likely care more about hobbies or other things, and would happily quit their job and have fun if they won the lottery. > The alternative would be to, which you seem to advocate, take a job, stand still in it for a few years, then wehn you're bored or feel like you're becoming obsolete, read some books on nights and weekends on whatever new trends people ask about in interviews, take a new job, stand still in it for a few years, and so on. Not at all -- but there's a huge difference between "being interested in something new" and "train someone in a new field they are not proficient in" especially when there is no commitment (nor could there be) on their side. The latter costs money to the employer, which some can afford and some cannot -- either way, it is not a basic human right.
  • tvaughan 9y ago
    > you have to be aware of big-O, or you're going to hit a lot of walls. Of course you do, along with many other things - many other things that you won't know you need to be aware of because you haven't come across them yet or because they haven't been invented yet. What I said is that it's important to know how to figure these things out, not be able to recite them from memory. > What exactly were you trying to say here? You said "Some of us are bootstrapped in a cut-throat market and can't afford to plan employee retention 10 years into the future" To me this is a defeatist attitude. Our jobs are fundamentally about solving problems, and this, like my example, has a solution. > Then you would lose this wager. You can't have it both ways. You seemed to say that your preferred interview style selects the best of the brightest, but now it selects people who just want to clock in and out?
    • beagle3 9y ago
      > Our jobs are fundamentally about solving problems, and this, like my example, has a solution. Unfortunately, if resources are limited, you have to compromise. Google's resources are limitless, mine isn't. if your solution is "close up shop and go work for someone who has more resources" then I'm not the defeatist. What's your solution for constrained resources? > You can't have it both ways I do try to select for the best and the brightest. I pointed out that some people like to clock (your wording implied everyone likes to learn new things on their job). The best and the brightest who are not Jeff Dean tend to change jobs every few years even if they work for Google. And no, I cannot afford to employ Jeff Dean, I admit. Can you?
      • tvaughan 9y ago
        > What's your solution for constrained resources? Which resources are constrained? Our examples are 1) (yours) cultures that are hostile to employee growth and education, and 2) (mine) hostile to women and people of color. These are solvable problems, even ones as awful as Uber as we're seeing play out. As for what we can do, we can start to hold our industry accountable. When we hear about some unicorn at some absurd valuation, rather than simply applaud we need to ask them about their culture, how they treat their employees and customers, do they have a healthy work/life balance, what exactly are they doing to foster diversity, what's their impact on the environment, does their product actually make the world a better place, are they in service of the surveillance state, and so on. We need to redefine what it means to be successful in our industry. > And no, I cannot afford to employ Jeff Dean, I admit. Can you? How did we get here? I said "What these types of interviews say to me is the companies who use them have no interest in their employees growth and education." As I read the thread that follows from this point, it seems like you agree which is at odds with your defense of these types of interviews that started our discussion.