10 ms·

Terrible - which I assume was the point. The interviewer is clearly trying to do the right thing (own laptop, well known problem, your choice of tech) and the

by k1t 6y ago

Terrible - which I assume was the point. The interviewer is clearly trying to do the right thing (own laptop, well known problem, your choice of tech) and the candidate is clearly talented, but the result is an unmitigated disaster. Obviously the interviewer should have provided more direction on the expected solution and the candidate should have focused on the simplest solution not the most unusual. But - I think these technical interviews are a lot more about "did the candidate approach the problem the same way you would?" rather than "did the candidate solve the problem?" than we would like to admit. (Again, probably the point of the tale)

benlivengood 6y ago
I think the point of the name Nephele (from Greek mythology) is that the candidate was sent to test the interviewer. > Obviously the interviewer should have provided more direction on the expected solution and the candidate should have focused on the simplest solution not the most unusual. The quote "The company does not need thinkers, they need doers. Mathematicians just examine made-up problems. But at this company, the engineers build real products for real people." from the interviewer suggests that the interviewer only wants to hire a devops person with a standard bag of tricks. The candidate has a bag of tricks in the relevant domain, but what a bag of tricks.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Jaygles 6y ago
It read to me like a breakdown in communication. It wasn't made clear what the interviewer was going to get out of having the candidate solve fizzbuzz. The candidate demonstrated that they understood the question well enough. But it seems they wanted to demonstrate the technologies they were familiar with, rather than give a simple answer. From the interviewer's inner monologue it seems clear he wanted to prove the candidate had the most basic of skills for the job. It may not have been in the candidates mind that she was being asked such a simple question.
- runawaybottle 6y ago
  The interviewer identified ego and arrogance very quickly, that’s why the interview ended in his mind early. On a sufficiently relevant problem with reasonable difficulty and depth, I think these human elements would disappear as the problem set requires too much concentration. The interviewer wanted to end it because the question he asked was ‘Are you too good for this?’, and the interviewer replied ‘Yes’. Which oddly, is an honest answer. I feel sad, if the candidate did the fizzbuzz as asked, they wouldn’t stand out on any level compared to all the other people that did fizzbuzz as asked. God knows what the other evaluation criteria is. Clearly the resume and a background check is not enough, because they still fizzbuzzed her.
  - milesvp 6y ago
    Historically fizzbuzz was meant as a sanity check. Can this dev code a simple for loop with some conditionals in it? It was made up because some dev realized that too many poor candidates were making it to late stages of his hiring process. It’s not meant to make candidates stand out, it’s meant to be a practical filter. My personal experience as a dev is that my weakest teamates would visibly deflate anytime a work problem came up that required a simple for loop, so it’s not a terrible bar to filter on. https://imranontech.com/2007/01/24/using-fizzbuzz-to-find-developers-who-grok-coding/ https://imranontech.com/2007/01/24/using-fizzbuzz-to-find-de...
    - runawaybottle 6y ago
      I mean, we are saying that job experience doesn’t mean anything based on anecdotes. The power of the narrative is intense. Some of you dealt with candidates that can’t make it through a for loop, okay. This one ghost story dictated the entire direction of hiring. We are superstitious at this point.
crescentfresh 6y ago
> these technical interviews are a lot more about "did the candidate approach the problem the same way you would?" honest question, I can only evaluate the correctness of a thing if I am familiar with the tech the candidate used to answer the question. Is this being unfair? Should I instead use the technical interview as a time to do as much information gathering as possible then take it back to the wider technical team for evaluation (provided I am not able to understand the technical answer myself).
- gumby 6y ago
  If the candidate is using a tech you’re unfamiliar with why are you interviewing them? In general* you want people who claim familiarity with the tech they will be using in the job. And if that is the case but you aren’t familiar with that tech (you work on a different part of the stack, say) then you shouldn’t be wasting their or your time having them code something up but instead you should be asking them about the parts which are the reason for you to be one of the interviewers. * yes there are several exceptions to this but they are exceptions.
  - crescentfresh 6y ago
    > If the candidate is using a tech you’re unfamiliar with why are you interviewing them? did you read the article? Did you see the comment I was replying to? The gist is that a candidate may know other things that I don't and still successfully answers the technical question. Just because it wasn't using the tech I would have used to solve the problem doesn't mean they're unqualified. Not saying that's what you're saying, I'm just repeating explicitly what I only implied earlier.
- notapenny 6y ago
  I wouldn't call it unfair, but if you're giving the candidate the option to solve a problem in their language of choice, you may run into this. You can either constrain the problem (we work with languages X, Y Z, so pick either of those) or still give them the option but use it in another way. For example, I work in front-end but I do most interviews across front-end, back-end, devops, always together with someone who's familiar with the domain or the specific stack we're recruiting for. In that case I'm there to test more on softer skills, but also its a good test to see if a candidate can discuss their domain with someone who isn't familiar with it.

by k1t 6y ago

benlivengood 6y ago

I think the point of the name Nephele (from Greek mythology) is that the candidate was sent to test the interviewer. > Obviously the interviewer should have provided more direction on the expected solution and the candidate should have focused on the simplest solution not the most unusual. The quote "The company does not need thinkers, they need doers. Mathematicians just examine made-up problems. But at this company, the engineers build real products for real people." from the interviewer suggests that the interviewer only wants to hire a devops person with a standard bag of tricks. The candidate has a bag of tricks in the relevant domain, but what a bag of tricks.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Jaygles 6y ago

It read to me like a breakdown in communication. It wasn't made clear what the interviewer was going to get out of having the candidate solve fizzbuzz. The candidate demonstrated that they understood the question well enough. But it seems they wanted to demonstrate the technologies they were familiar with, rather than give a simple answer. From the interviewer's inner monologue it seems clear he wanted to prove the candidate had the most basic of skills for the job. It may not have been in the candidates mind that she was being asked such a simple question.

runawaybottle 6y ago
The interviewer identified ego and arrogance very quickly, that’s why the interview ended in his mind early. On a sufficiently relevant problem with reasonable difficulty and depth, I think these human elements would disappear as the problem set requires too much concentration. The interviewer wanted to end it because the question he asked was ‘Are you too good for this?’, and the interviewer replied ‘Yes’. Which oddly, is an honest answer. I feel sad, if the candidate did the fizzbuzz as asked, they wouldn’t stand out on any level compared to all the other people that did fizzbuzz as asked. God knows what the other evaluation criteria is. Clearly the resume and a background check is not enough, because they still fizzbuzzed her.
- milesvp 6y ago
  Historically fizzbuzz was meant as a sanity check. Can this dev code a simple for loop with some conditionals in it? It was made up because some dev realized that too many poor candidates were making it to late stages of his hiring process. It’s not meant to make candidates stand out, it’s meant to be a practical filter. My personal experience as a dev is that my weakest teamates would visibly deflate anytime a work problem came up that required a simple for loop, so it’s not a terrible bar to filter on. https://imranontech.com/2007/01/24/using-fizzbuzz-to-find-developers-who-grok-coding/ https://imranontech.com/2007/01/24/using-fizzbuzz-to-find-de...
  - runawaybottle 6y ago
    I mean, we are saying that job experience doesn’t mean anything based on anecdotes. The power of the narrative is intense. Some of you dealt with candidates that can’t make it through a for loop, okay. This one ghost story dictated the entire direction of hiring. We are superstitious at this point.

crescentfresh 6y ago

> these technical interviews are a lot more about "did the candidate approach the problem the same way you would?" honest question, I can only evaluate the correctness of a thing if I am familiar with the tech the candidate used to answer the question. Is this being unfair? Should I instead use the technical interview as a time to do as much information gathering as possible then take it back to the wider technical team for evaluation (provided I am not able to understand the technical answer myself).

gumby 6y ago
If the candidate is using a tech you’re unfamiliar with why are you interviewing them? In general* you want people who claim familiarity with the tech they will be using in the job. And if that is the case but you aren’t familiar with that tech (you work on a different part of the stack, say) then you shouldn’t be wasting their or your time having them code something up but instead you should be asking them about the parts which are the reason for you to be one of the interviewers. * yes there are several exceptions to this but they are exceptions.
- crescentfresh 6y ago
  > If the candidate is using a tech you’re unfamiliar with why are you interviewing them? did you read the article? Did you see the comment I was replying to? The gist is that a candidate may know other things that I don't and still successfully answers the technical question. Just because it wasn't using the tech I would have used to solve the problem doesn't mean they're unqualified. Not saying that's what you're saying, I'm just repeating explicitly what I only implied earlier.
notapenny 6y ago
I wouldn't call it unfair, but if you're giving the candidate the option to solve a problem in their language of choice, you may run into this. You can either constrain the problem (we work with languages X, Y Z, so pick either of those) or still give them the option but use it in another way. For example, I work in front-end but I do most interviews across front-end, back-end, devops, always together with someone who's familiar with the domain or the specific stack we're recruiting for. In that case I'm there to test more on softer skills, but also its a good test to see if a candidate can discuss their domain with someone who isn't familiar with it.