5 ms·

Man, I don't know, if you need some binary trees inverted on a whiteboard, they are still the go-to folks.

ctvo 5y ago
Can we stop with this meme? I've seen it now twice in this thread and across the boarder Google threads today. The hiring process is this way for the entire industry. Multiple startups have failed trying to move it away from its current incarnation of technical phone screen -> technical on-site, where the majority of technical questions asked are data structures, algorithms, and system design based. Implying that the people at Google are only good at whiteboard interviews, and not much else, in terms of both intelligence and technical ability is laughable. Google's influence on software engineering is broad and deep. Their papers moved the industry, their open source projects power the industry, their internal tools influence shifts in the industry. There's something wrong with you when you let their signal / data gathering for their hiring process impair your ability to see what they contribute clearly, and what obviously works for them in terms of hiring able engineers. Using this issue, which is clearly not related to engineering ability (it's a systemic management issue as far as I can tell), as a data point to demonstrate that their interview process is flawed, and that the engineers that made it through it aren't able says more about your own emotional state.
- throwawaycuriou 5y ago
  Binary trees during the hiring process for software engineers is not a part of the entire industry. I'd be surprised if it was even the majority. But it is prevalent, and posts pop up here regularly disparaging it. Places lean into Google's way of doing things by default without demonstrating that it leads to positive outcomes _for their business_. Google themselves do it due to no small part to compensate for the pitfalls of getting as big as they have. Pointing out that what they do is ubiquitous and inherently optimal is conflating scale with success.
  - ctvo 5y ago
    > Binary trees during the hiring process for software engineers is not a part of the entire industry. I'd be surprised if it was even the majority. But it is prevalent, and posts pop up here regularly disparaging it. Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Netflix, Apple, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Snap, RobinHood, Walmart, Twilio, Uber, DoorDash, ... (we can continue down the list of US / western technology companies here for quite some time), all ask technical questions following the standard data structures, algorithms and system design format. They don't specifically ask for binary trees, but Google doesn't specifically ask that question either. There is no standard for the entire industry, but this method is common, to pretend otherwise is disingenuous . > Places lean into Google's way of doing things by default without demonstrating that it leads to positive outcomes _for their business_. Google themselves do it due to no small part to compensate for the pitfalls of getting as big as they have. Pointing out that what they do is ubiquitous and inherently optimal is conflating scale with success. There are multiple assumptions here on your part. One is that this is something that occurs due to scale. Please prove it. The on-site process outlined takes engineering time, and is costly. It's multiple hours long, brings in multiple engineers, and requires lengthy discussions afterwards. Surely there's something that scales better if that were the motivation here? The second assumption is places blindly follow Google's lead, with no further analysis on their own if it' beneficial to their business. This is mindbogglingly presumptuous considering the million / billion / trillion dollar companies with highly capable engineering / HR leaders on that list. You obviously know better than them with the data they've collected? The above is outside my original point: This thread is not a question of engineering ability. It's a systemic management failure. Latching on to anything negative re: Google / Big Tech to vent your frustrated at the hiring process, and how see! it lets in those who aren't intelligent, capable, etc. is a reflection of your own emotional state.
    - LandR 5y ago
      These sort of silly interview questions seems to be a US thing. Never been asked to whiteboard anything in interviews, I'm in Scotland. Also never been asked anything ds&a related.
- Oddskar 5y ago
  On the contrary I think it's a very good meme. This kind of hiring process should be shunned and shamed. I have never come across this in Europe and I hope I never will, and I certainly don't partake in this circus when I interview people.
eclipxe 5y ago
Inverting a binary tree isn't particularly hard.

ctvo 5y ago

Can we stop with this meme? I've seen it now twice in this thread and across the boarder Google threads today. The hiring process is this way for the entire industry. Multiple startups have failed trying to move it away from its current incarnation of technical phone screen -> technical on-site, where the majority of technical questions asked are data structures, algorithms, and system design based. Implying that the people at Google are only good at whiteboard interviews, and not much else, in terms of both intelligence and technical ability is laughable. Google's influence on software engineering is broad and deep. Their papers moved the industry, their open source projects power the industry, their internal tools influence shifts in the industry. There's something wrong with you when you let their signal / data gathering for their hiring process impair your ability to see what they contribute clearly, and what obviously works for them in terms of hiring able engineers. Using this issue, which is clearly not related to engineering ability (it's a systemic management issue as far as I can tell), as a data point to demonstrate that their interview process is flawed, and that the engineers that made it through it aren't able says more about your own emotional state.

throwawaycuriou 5y ago
Binary trees during the hiring process for software engineers is not a part of the entire industry. I'd be surprised if it was even the majority. But it is prevalent, and posts pop up here regularly disparaging it. Places lean into Google's way of doing things by default without demonstrating that it leads to positive outcomes _for their business_. Google themselves do it due to no small part to compensate for the pitfalls of getting as big as they have. Pointing out that what they do is ubiquitous and inherently optimal is conflating scale with success.
- ctvo 5y ago
  > Binary trees during the hiring process for software engineers is not a part of the entire industry. I'd be surprised if it was even the majority. But it is prevalent, and posts pop up here regularly disparaging it. Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Netflix, Apple, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Snap, RobinHood, Walmart, Twilio, Uber, DoorDash, ... (we can continue down the list of US / western technology companies here for quite some time), all ask technical questions following the standard data structures, algorithms and system design format. They don't specifically ask for binary trees, but Google doesn't specifically ask that question either. There is no standard for the entire industry, but this method is common, to pretend otherwise is disingenuous . > Places lean into Google's way of doing things by default without demonstrating that it leads to positive outcomes _for their business_. Google themselves do it due to no small part to compensate for the pitfalls of getting as big as they have. Pointing out that what they do is ubiquitous and inherently optimal is conflating scale with success. There are multiple assumptions here on your part. One is that this is something that occurs due to scale. Please prove it. The on-site process outlined takes engineering time, and is costly. It's multiple hours long, brings in multiple engineers, and requires lengthy discussions afterwards. Surely there's something that scales better if that were the motivation here? The second assumption is places blindly follow Google's lead, with no further analysis on their own if it' beneficial to their business. This is mindbogglingly presumptuous considering the million / billion / trillion dollar companies with highly capable engineering / HR leaders on that list. You obviously know better than them with the data they've collected? The above is outside my original point: This thread is not a question of engineering ability. It's a systemic management failure. Latching on to anything negative re: Google / Big Tech to vent your frustrated at the hiring process, and how see! it lets in those who aren't intelligent, capable, etc. is a reflection of your own emotional state.
  - LandR 5y ago
    These sort of silly interview questions seems to be a US thing. Never been asked to whiteboard anything in interviews, I'm in Scotland. Also never been asked anything ds&a related.
Oddskar 5y ago
On the contrary I think it's a very good meme. This kind of hiring process should be shunned and shamed. I have never come across this in Europe and I hope I never will, and I certainly don't partake in this circus when I interview people.

eclipxe 5y ago

Inverting a binary tree isn't particularly hard.