7 ms·
1) Remote. 2) Money. 3) Demonstrate that you have half a clue how to run a project. 4) BONUS ROUND: No hours-long puzzle-question-memorization interview bull
by asark 7y ago
1) Remote.
2) Money.
3) Demonstrate that you have half a clue how to run a project.
4) BONUS ROUND: No hours-long puzzle-question-memorization interview bullshit if you're not paying FAANG money and providing FAANG levels of résumé prestige.
- dbcurtis 7y agoDoes F still have resume prestige? I predicted more than 10 years ago that someday having worked at Facebook would be the resume stain that you wear for life. Has it not yet come to pass that having worked at Facebook is a red flag? Sure, you are probably smart. But anybody that lists Facebook on their resume is going to find a lot of their interview time with me going to probing their ethics.
- darkwizard42 7y agoBig tech companies still use very valuable process, usually high amounts of tech (some in house but there is a lot to learn from even that). The prestige is that they are hard to get into so if you made it you passed their bar and you probably had some impact there and learned good process that you can bring to a usually less disciplined startup.
- linuxftw 7y agoProbing their ethics? Have you worked for any large corporations? They all do unethical stuff. It all depends on your views specifically. I find copyright and patents to be unethical. Probably not many people I could hire if I employed a similar tactic.
- Phlarp 7y agoI would agree the resume prestige has diminished from what it once was, but I think it's a little far to suggest that any rank and file ENGINEER would have compromised ethics just from choosing to work there. Facebook uses cutting edge tech and pays really well, I would never hold it against an engineer young or old for accepting a position that very likely offered more compensation than they've ever had before. If you are interviewing Facebook execs or management it would seem reasonable to question their ethics.
- c0vfefe 7y agoIn fact we can tell from Googlers commenting here on HN that individual engineers often disagree with some of the practices of their (huge) employer.
- yeahitslikethat 7y agoThen they should quit. Stand up for what's right. If the engineers quit, the company can't do it anymore. They are all accomplices. For whatever reason they don't stop and thus their ethics are compromised.
- neilv 7y agoQuote fragment that can be interpreted as opposite of what you intended: > I think it's a little far to suggest that any rank and file ENGINEER would have compromised ethics just from choosing to work there. Facebook uses cutting edge tech and pays really well, I give people benefit of the doubt, recognize that sometimes we have to compromise, etc., but let's not hand out ethical freebies in advance.
- yeahitslikethat 7y agoEthical behavior is immune to "more compensation than they've ever had before." that's the point. If they are continuing in any way to benefit the operation of a business that does those things then they are morally corrupt.
- dbcurtis 7y ago> I think it's a little far to suggest that any rank and file ENGINEER would have compromised ethics They should have the ability to think about the ethical impact of their work, or have awoken to the necessity. “never thought about it” is a worse answer than “I’m OK with it.” I may not hire someone who answers the later, but I can respect them for having a thoughtful answer.
- neilv 7y agoI suggest that the "coding test" Bonus Round has a few secret side purposes, especially when used on experienced candidates: * The candidate focuses on hoop-jumping for the frat hazing, rather than on how skilled the people giving the one-way interviewing are, and what they'd be like to work with. (In any other context, this one-way behavior would be an oblivious and kinda jerky move, and also suggest a dysfunctional organizational culture -- something you wouldn't want to work with, but we don't make that connection.) * Tries to estabish the power dynamic of the company as the cool kids and the authority, and the candidate is the one applying for acceptance. (The terminology is already loaded: "candidate", "applicant".) * Related Jedi mind trick on the candidate: the fact that the candidate is investing in submitting to employer games makes them think that this must be something they want, or they wouldn't have invested.
- linuxftw 7y agoI often feel the interviewee role is backwards for senior level positions. It should be more like a college recruiting a star athlete. My body of work is on the public internet, it's all about what you can offer me, not the other way around.
- yeahitslikethat 7y agoIt is that way.
- neilv 7y agoI see what you mean, and I'd suggest looking for a halfway between the extremes... I look for collegial peer interactions, in which we have a mutual interest in finding the right mutual match for everyone. And I think demonstrating that from the start, during interviewing, bodes well for a good working environment/relationship in practice. (An employer not demonstrating this from the start constitutes a failure of a behavioral test for the employer, if we're talking about "tests".)
- pmiller2 7y agoI agree, but for actually senior people, not people who’ve survived the SF tech scene for 3-5 years.