5 ms·

I don't understand your objection here. The question presented is a simple, open-ended question with a number of acceptable solutions. It's not even remotely

I don't understand your objection here. The question presented is a simple, open-ended question with a number of acceptable solutions. It's not even remotely "unanswerable". It's at least mildly interesting as indicated by the number of responses at a similar question on StackOverflow: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2573653/given-a-1tb-data-set-on-disk-with-around-1kb-per-data-record-how-can-i-find-dupl/2578319 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2573653/given-a-1tb-data-... . It's not far from the problems Ning solves. It's not an "aha" problem that you either get or you don't get. It's complex enough to reveal the candidate's thought process and problem solving methodology, but it's small enough for good candidates to get to a reasonable solution in the 45-60 minutes of an ordinary interview. Nothing about the article indicates that the author has a chip on his shoulder, nor that he's a dork who wants to "battle it out for dominance as alpha-geek." Nothing about the article indicates that author is looking for a specific solution reflective only of his particular prejudices in programming. What in the world is the basis for your entire diatribe here?

bjnortier_hn 16y ago
I would say that having "interrogation techniques" crossed out is a pretty good indication that the author's state of mind in an interview situation is aggressive and domineering.
- Goladus 16y ago
  I would have said the same thing until I read the rest of the article. In context I think it's meant primarily to be funny. The author clearly maintains some expectations about the level of response from the candidate, but overall it's designed to be interactive. Chances are that unless the candidate gives a really superior answer, it's not going to be the only question asked.
- jemfinch 16y ago
  I would say it's obviously a joke. Do you always assume the worst of people?
  - variety 16y ago
    Maybe he thought he was making a joke, but the point is that it comes off "Ha, ha, only serious": http://sunsite.ualberta.ca/jargon/html/H/ha-ha-only-serious.html
    - scott_s 16y ago
      It does at first, but upon reading the entire essay I was convinced his intentions are honest.
- jholman 16y ago
  What is the meaning, in an essay, of a cross-out word? Generally, I would say that any time an author takes the extra trouble to write in an extra word and cross it out, they are making some kind of meta-comment deliberately, rather than straightforwardly revealing that the crossed-out word is representative of their true state of mind. The crossed-out word is a meta-comment on what the author thinks about the shared idea-space of the author-plus-audience, usually to say "hey I know that we all know that this concept exists", usually to also say "and that this concept is an unmentionable", and often to also say "and I think that's a bit funny". In this case, we all know that some people conduct interviews as interrogations (and some people think that indeed they should do so), and on the other hand some people think that this is offensive. And brianm wants you to know that he knows we all know it. MAYBE it's on his mind because he's an aggressive domineering jerk who likes to interrogate people, but he's sensitive enough to be a little defensive about it. MAYBE it's on his mind because he's NOT aggressive or domineering, and he's frustrated by how easily interviews become interrogations, and his whole deal is trying to prevent that without making the whole interview meaningless. MAYBE something else. How're you going to find out? Read the article! My point, tl;dr: If you see a word crossed-out, by an author you don't already know, and you think "Oh this author really means the crossed-out thing", I think that's a poor comprehension strategy.
lrm242 16y ago
Seeing as you worked at Ning and likely participated in these types of interviews it's not surprising you don't get it. Surely Ning was a great place to work and I'm sure you found really top-notch employees through your well known tough hiring process, but I'd be willing to wager they all look very much the same when you blur your eyes a little bit. My diatribe, as you so eloquently put it, is based on the article. The list of things that the author expects to see in the answer. The way the question is presented. The lead off with "interrogation". The "gotcha" follow-up regarding how things might fail. These questions are great at finding a very specific type of candidate, but the entire point of my comment is that this one candidate type is typically not indicative of the best engineer. Of course you'll disagree, I'm sure, seeing as you were part of this process.
- mquander 16y ago
  Well, I'm eager to hear what you think the candidate type of the best engineer is, why that type of candidate would fail to come up with a reasonable train of thought given the cited question in an interview, and how you select for that candidate type. If questions like the one posted find a type of candidate who can think well under mild pressure, who can quickly brainstorm sensible approaches to technical problems, and who can communicate their ideas and reasoning to their peers, then that sounds like a pretty good outcome to me.
- brianm 16y ago
  Asking how it will fail is a gotcha? To my knowledge and experience thus far, all systems fail. The question is "given this one, that we now have a good shared understanding of, which you designed with the tools you are most familiar with, how is it going to fail? Not one candidate I can think of has been either surprised by this question, or felt stuck, fwiw. Again, I may be completely self delusional, but I hope not!
- jemfinch 16y ago
  Wow. You seem angry, or frustrated. Did I say something that offended you? I only participated in Ning's interviews as an interviewee. I worked for Ning for six weeks before the layoffs. The only thing I'd notice when I blur my eyes a little bit is that Ning employees were better engineers than most I'd previously worked with. The same applies at my current employer, also known for its rigorous interviews. The similarities ended there. You complain here about the things the author expects to see in an answer. He's looking to see what they think of that scale of problem and how their thoughts comport with their resume. He's looking to see what questions they ask to get more detail. He's looking to see that the solution is in reasonable bounds for hardware--that the candidate understands the limitations of the silicon we have to work with. He's looking to see whether they would reinvent the wheel or use proven technologies. He's looking to see what languages and technologies a candidate would choose to use. He's looking to see how well the candidate understands those tools. He's looking to see how cognizant candidates are of the failure modes of the system they're designing. Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see any issue with the list of things the author expects to see expects to see. Can you be more specific, perhaps? Likewise I don't understand the problem with the way the question is presented. He describes the data you have and the load you need to support. Is there something wrong with that presentation? The crossed-out "interrogation" is obviously a joke. I'm certainly not known for my intuitive perceptiveness and I still saw that (and no, I never met brianm while working at Ning, to my knowledge). How is asking about failure modes a "gotcha"? Every good engineer needs to consider how his designs and systems can fail. What in that question do you expect trips up good engineers? The only "specific type of candidate" this question seems oriented toward finding is "good engineers." He's not asking for particular technologies. He's not even looking for a particular solution. He's just asking people an open-ended question about how they would design a system. All the best engineers I know would be able to answer that question in 30 minutes. I don't disagree because I was part of the process, I disagree because I can't understand your objections. I hate to sink to personal attacks like you have, but have you considered that your opinion on questions like this may have been formed by your abilities? It seems a more likely possibility than that questions like this are fundamentally flawed in some way that you've as yet been unable to describe. Both companies I've worked with that have had rigorous interview questions of this sort have hired the highest quality talent I've ever had the pleasure of working with.

bjnortier_hn 16y ago

I would say that having "interrogation techniques" crossed out is a pretty good indication that the author's state of mind in an interview situation is aggressive and domineering.

Goladus 16y ago
I would have said the same thing until I read the rest of the article. In context I think it's meant primarily to be funny. The author clearly maintains some expectations about the level of response from the candidate, but overall it's designed to be interactive. Chances are that unless the candidate gives a really superior answer, it's not going to be the only question asked.
jemfinch 16y ago
I would say it's obviously a joke. Do you always assume the worst of people?
- variety 16y ago
  Maybe he thought he was making a joke, but the point is that it comes off "Ha, ha, only serious": http://sunsite.ualberta.ca/jargon/html/H/ha-ha-only-serious.html
  - scott_s 16y ago
    It does at first, but upon reading the entire essay I was convinced his intentions are honest.
jholman 16y ago
What is the meaning, in an essay, of a cross-out word? Generally, I would say that any time an author takes the extra trouble to write in an extra word and cross it out, they are making some kind of meta-comment deliberately, rather than straightforwardly revealing that the crossed-out word is representative of their true state of mind. The crossed-out word is a meta-comment on what the author thinks about the shared idea-space of the author-plus-audience, usually to say "hey I know that we all know that this concept exists", usually to also say "and that this concept is an unmentionable", and often to also say "and I think that's a bit funny". In this case, we all know that some people conduct interviews as interrogations (and some people think that indeed they should do so), and on the other hand some people think that this is offensive. And brianm wants you to know that he knows we all know it. MAYBE it's on his mind because he's an aggressive domineering jerk who likes to interrogate people, but he's sensitive enough to be a little defensive about it. MAYBE it's on his mind because he's NOT aggressive or domineering, and he's frustrated by how easily interviews become interrogations, and his whole deal is trying to prevent that without making the whole interview meaningless. MAYBE something else. How're you going to find out? Read the article! My point, tl;dr: If you see a word crossed-out, by an author you don't already know, and you think "Oh this author really means the crossed-out thing", I think that's a poor comprehension strategy.

lrm242 16y ago

Seeing as you worked at Ning and likely participated in these types of interviews it's not surprising you don't get it. Surely Ning was a great place to work and I'm sure you found really top-notch employees through your well known tough hiring process, but I'd be willing to wager they all look very much the same when you blur your eyes a little bit. My diatribe, as you so eloquently put it, is based on the article. The list of things that the author expects to see in the answer. The way the question is presented. The lead off with "interrogation". The "gotcha" follow-up regarding how things might fail. These questions are great at finding a very specific type of candidate, but the entire point of my comment is that this one candidate type is typically not indicative of the best engineer. Of course you'll disagree, I'm sure, seeing as you were part of this process.

mquander 16y ago
Well, I'm eager to hear what you think the candidate type of the best engineer is, why that type of candidate would fail to come up with a reasonable train of thought given the cited question in an interview, and how you select for that candidate type. If questions like the one posted find a type of candidate who can think well under mild pressure, who can quickly brainstorm sensible approaches to technical problems, and who can communicate their ideas and reasoning to their peers, then that sounds like a pretty good outcome to me.
brianm 16y ago
Asking how it will fail is a gotcha? To my knowledge and experience thus far, all systems fail. The question is "given this one, that we now have a good shared understanding of, which you designed with the tools you are most familiar with, how is it going to fail? Not one candidate I can think of has been either surprised by this question, or felt stuck, fwiw. Again, I may be completely self delusional, but I hope not!
jemfinch 16y ago
Wow. You seem angry, or frustrated. Did I say something that offended you? I only participated in Ning's interviews as an interviewee. I worked for Ning for six weeks before the layoffs. The only thing I'd notice when I blur my eyes a little bit is that Ning employees were better engineers than most I'd previously worked with. The same applies at my current employer, also known for its rigorous interviews. The similarities ended there. You complain here about the things the author expects to see in an answer. He's looking to see what they think of that scale of problem and how their thoughts comport with their resume. He's looking to see what questions they ask to get more detail. He's looking to see that the solution is in reasonable bounds for hardware--that the candidate understands the limitations of the silicon we have to work with. He's looking to see whether they would reinvent the wheel or use proven technologies. He's looking to see what languages and technologies a candidate would choose to use. He's looking to see how well the candidate understands those tools. He's looking to see how cognizant candidates are of the failure modes of the system they're designing. Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see any issue with the list of things the author expects to see expects to see. Can you be more specific, perhaps? Likewise I don't understand the problem with the way the question is presented. He describes the data you have and the load you need to support. Is there something wrong with that presentation? The crossed-out "interrogation" is obviously a joke. I'm certainly not known for my intuitive perceptiveness and I still saw that (and no, I never met brianm while working at Ning, to my knowledge). How is asking about failure modes a "gotcha"? Every good engineer needs to consider how his designs and systems can fail. What in that question do you expect trips up good engineers? The only "specific type of candidate" this question seems oriented toward finding is "good engineers." He's not asking for particular technologies. He's not even looking for a particular solution. He's just asking people an open-ended question about how they would design a system. All the best engineers I know would be able to answer that question in 30 minutes. I don't disagree because I was part of the process, I disagree because I can't understand your objections. I hate to sink to personal attacks like you have, but have you considered that your opinion on questions like this may have been formed by your abilities? It seems a more likely possibility than that questions like this are fundamentally flawed in some way that you've as yet been unable to describe. Both companies I've worked with that have had rigorous interview questions of this sort have hired the highest quality talent I've ever had the pleasure of working with.