4 ms·

The problem is that the way software works , every part of software interacts with every other part. Web apps use databases , compilers , networks and so on. No

The problem is that the way software works , every part of software interacts with every other part. Web apps use databases , compilers , networks and so on. Now ofc most of the time you won't need to understand the details behind those but it's good to understand them well enough to be able to if you need.

deltaonefour 5y ago
But this doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. Most jobs are easy but interviews filter for something very specific. Algorithms. Algorithm interview skill is largely different from even the details behind compilers and databases. It's like competitive typing. Everyone can type. But interviewers filter for the best.
- wittycardio 5y ago
  I think algorithms allow you to pick up all of those other things more quickly. I'm not saying that the interviews are a perfect way to measure this , but a good understanding of algorithms is really useful to understand any software
  - deltaonefour 5y ago
    No it doesn't. You can pick up all the other things without competitive algorithms knowledge. That's the key word: competitive. This is knowledge excessively optimized for coding competitions like top coder. Think of it this way. Can all theoretical mathematicians do well in a timed math competition? Certainly there are those that will, but certainly there are many great mathematicians who won't do well yet have produced many great papers and discoveries. These companies are filtering for competitive algorithm skills. Its like only allowing the top competitive typists to work in data entry and paying those data entry people 500k salaries.
    - wittycardio 5y ago
      Most faang employees would not do well in competitive programming challenges because those are way harder than interview questions. Some interview style questions are unreasonable but a lot can be solved with basic concepts
      - deltaonefour 5y ago
        Yes, there are degrees of hardness with competitive programming being the very tip top and FAANG interviews (googles especially) being not so far behind. Think of it like this, in competitive programming is S-tier. Faang interviews are A-tier. The job only requires C-tier. Just know you basic DFS, BFS, recursion, heaps and all that stuff and how to look shit up when needed is C-tier. Look, the above is just my opinion against yours, but what do the metrics say? Googles acceptance rate is less than harvard. That's like less then 1%. There's two conclusions you can draw from that metric: Conclusion 1: Only 1% of people who applied are able to work at google. Conclusion 2: The google filter is extreme and filtering way beyond people who are just capable of working for google. Google even admits this. They bias the interviews to be hard to get rid of false positives who can potentially make it through slightly easier interviews. As a result they end up creating a lot of false negatives... That's the narrative google makes up to excuse their less than 1% acceptance rate. Makes them seem less seem less elitist. But to crank up the hardness of the interview to less than 1% for this excuse? That's a little extreme. If the acceptance rate was 20% sure... but not less than 1%. They're asking me to believe a reality where there's so many potential false positives that they have to crank up the difficulty to a 1% acceptance rate? LOL. It's BS. But either way. Google needs to filter somehow as they can't have everyone working for them. There's not enough money or space for everyone who applies. The question is whether algorithms are the best filter? My argument is no, it is not. Rejecting the creator of brew (and on the facebook side, the creator of hadoop) for example is the kind of stupidity that comes from religiously worshipping algorithms as the one true indicator of programmer skill.

deltaonefour 5y ago

But this doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. Most jobs are easy but interviews filter for something very specific. Algorithms. Algorithm interview skill is largely different from even the details behind compilers and databases. It's like competitive typing. Everyone can type. But interviewers filter for the best.

wittycardio 5y ago
I think algorithms allow you to pick up all of those other things more quickly. I'm not saying that the interviews are a perfect way to measure this , but a good understanding of algorithms is really useful to understand any software
- deltaonefour 5y ago
  No it doesn't. You can pick up all the other things without competitive algorithms knowledge. That's the key word: competitive. This is knowledge excessively optimized for coding competitions like top coder. Think of it this way. Can all theoretical mathematicians do well in a timed math competition? Certainly there are those that will, but certainly there are many great mathematicians who won't do well yet have produced many great papers and discoveries. These companies are filtering for competitive algorithm skills. Its like only allowing the top competitive typists to work in data entry and paying those data entry people 500k salaries.
  - wittycardio 5y ago
    Most faang employees would not do well in competitive programming challenges because those are way harder than interview questions. Some interview style questions are unreasonable but a lot can be solved with basic concepts
    - deltaonefour 5y ago
      Yes, there are degrees of hardness with competitive programming being the very tip top and FAANG interviews (googles especially) being not so far behind. Think of it like this, in competitive programming is S-tier. Faang interviews are A-tier. The job only requires C-tier. Just know you basic DFS, BFS, recursion, heaps and all that stuff and how to look shit up when needed is C-tier. Look, the above is just my opinion against yours, but what do the metrics say? Googles acceptance rate is less than harvard. That's like less then 1%. There's two conclusions you can draw from that metric: Conclusion 1: Only 1% of people who applied are able to work at google. Conclusion 2: The google filter is extreme and filtering way beyond people who are just capable of working for google. Google even admits this. They bias the interviews to be hard to get rid of false positives who can potentially make it through slightly easier interviews. As a result they end up creating a lot of false negatives... That's the narrative google makes up to excuse their less than 1% acceptance rate. Makes them seem less seem less elitist. But to crank up the hardness of the interview to less than 1% for this excuse? That's a little extreme. If the acceptance rate was 20% sure... but not less than 1%. They're asking me to believe a reality where there's so many potential false positives that they have to crank up the difficulty to a 1% acceptance rate? LOL. It's BS. But either way. Google needs to filter somehow as they can't have everyone working for them. There's not enough money or space for everyone who applies. The question is whether algorithms are the best filter? My argument is no, it is not. Rejecting the creator of brew (and on the facebook side, the creator of hadoop) for example is the kind of stupidity that comes from religiously worshipping algorithms as the one true indicator of programmer skill.