3 ms·
In the US (I should say in MA, which is what I know best) the firing process is already trivial. The only real deterrent for firing someone is that it is an emo
by ljw1001 7y ago
In the US (I should say in MA, which is what I know best) the firing process is already trivial. The only real deterrent for firing someone is that it is an emotionally difficult task. I've been on both sides of that table, fwiw.
I absolutely love what you're after, though. I'm sick of companies that hire people to create trivial web or phone apps based on their skill at solving deep graph or search problems. (This, frankly, is part blind emulation of Google (& its peers), and part an effort by recent CS grads to ensure that they only have to work with people exactly like themselves. That is to say, it's a form of standardized prejudice.)
For nearly every dev positions, craft, tenacity, and people skills are vastly more important than algorithm chops.
I have yet to come across a company where the interviewers are better at interviewing than all but the most abysmal programming candidates are at programming. This kind of questioning of the status quo is much needed.
- slow_donkey 7y agoI hate such problems as a job seeker but you can't deny their effectiveness in finding viable candidates. We typically don't whiteboard and it's easy to find candidates who can pass the basic build/consume an API test. But once you throw a different type of problem, they fall apart. I hope someone can counter that whiteboarding also has the same fallacy.
- shmooth 7y agoi think this has to be wrong, else companies wouldn't try to hard to get you to quit instead of firing you. the primary reason they want you to quit is so they don't have to pay unemployment insurance. that is the real deterrent to firing someone. i'd say it's like 99:1 in terms of percentage. maybe throw in a new 5% somewhere that is afraid of someone going postal, hitting your glassdoor reviews, etc.