3 ms·

> nested for-loop problem > > No puzzles, no trivia-pursuit style questions. I swear HN technical interview threads are the poster child of talking past one a

by libria 7y ago

> nested for-loop problem > > No puzzles, no trivia-pursuit style questions. I swear HN technical interview threads are the poster child of talking past one another. First, for-loop is nowhere near a trivia-pursuit question. Second, different companies of different sizes/industries/goals have different requirements. Let's all move forward with this discussion and acknowledge that we can't all use the same process because we're not all hiring for the same type of job. If the engineers you hire consider for-loops a "puzzle" that's totally fine and OP using it doesn't invalidate your process for your multi-national or startup companies. > I can say that I've never regretted a hire I said yes to The real question is, has anyone else regretted that hire, which unfortunately can't be answered as they may not tell you. > To some of the younger generations, I've been told it sounds crazy. Doesn't sounds crazy at all. A single process guaranteed to work for everyone? Now that sounds crazy.

ryandrake 7y ago
Another question that has not be answered sufficiently: Would the guy you ended up not hiring actually have been a great hire? Everyone panics about / focuses on eliminating false positives and nobody studies or investigates the false negatives.
- JabrZer0 7y ago
  I have no data to back this up, but my expectation is that this is mostly a result of two things: 1. It's often surprisingly difficult to fire an underperformer (anecdata: a friend of mine has lost multiple talented members of his team in the past few months - all the result of having to work with one completely unqualified person. For some reason, the other person has not been fired). As a result, a bad hire can have an outsized and lasting effect on a company. 2. Unless you're looking at very senior positions, there are almost always more people available to fill a role. You may miss 9 out of 10 people who would be effective in the role, but you only need to hire one person. The math changes a bit when you look at the mythical 10x developer, so maybe it would be worth looking into false negatives specifically in that case. Still, getting that 10x dev would be much more important in a more senior position.

by libria 7y ago

ryandrake 7y ago

Another question that has not be answered sufficiently: Would the guy you ended up not hiring actually have been a great hire? Everyone panics about / focuses on eliminating false positives and nobody studies or investigates the false negatives.

JabrZer0 7y ago
I have no data to back this up, but my expectation is that this is mostly a result of two things: 1. It's often surprisingly difficult to fire an underperformer (anecdata: a friend of mine has lost multiple talented members of his team in the past few months - all the result of having to work with one completely unqualified person. For some reason, the other person has not been fired). As a result, a bad hire can have an outsized and lasting effect on a company. 2. Unless you're looking at very senior positions, there are almost always more people available to fill a role. You may miss 9 out of 10 people who would be effective in the role, but you only need to hire one person. The math changes a bit when you look at the mythical 10x developer, so maybe it would be worth looking into false negatives specifically in that case. Still, getting that 10x dev would be much more important in a more senior position.