3 ms·

> Um. Last time I checked So every google interview is for dev position and not other positions? Also, dev interviews depend on the person who interviews and n

by zmxz 4y ago

> Um. Last time I checked So every google interview is for dev position and not other positions? Also, dev interviews depend on the person who interviews and not all people are the same. Plus, the difficulty of interviews means absolutely nothing - checking the ability to solve trigonometry problems using C++ gives literally ZERO insight in how the candidate will be USED, managed, what the interaction with other people in the team will be, how much time will be wasted by using google complex amenities etc. Being able to solve rather trivial problem(s) that tutorial websites don't cover isn't valid measuring stick to assess someone's potential commercial viability. > The decision was made despite it. So you're still in favor of keeping employees who don't contribute for.. what reason exactly? It's not even a secret that everyone over-hired and that IT still suffers lack of skilled, competent, ethical, knowledgeable engineers. We didn't produce hundreds of thousands of experts in the last few years, we merely reported we did - and they're not as good as their CV's say. It reflects in job stability. I'm not the one who created this situation, but it's trivial to observe. Hire thousands who aren't as good. They underperform. Face huge loss of money OR get rid of dead weight. Yes, the boss wants to remain in the seat and rich, but the consequence did not occur because of the evil boss. It _also_ occurred because of incompetent self-proclaimed engineer.

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
<< Being able to solve rather trivial problem(s) that tutorial websites don't cover isn't valid measuring stick to assess someone's potential commercial viability. I hesitated a little bit, but I will admit you got me curious. The position assumes that you know a better way to assess that viability ( which assumes I accept that framing at face value -- I don't, but I want to get to the bottom of this argument ). Would you be willing to disclose your personal favorite measuring stick? << I'm not the one who created this situation, but it's trivial to observe. I wholeheartedly disagree. It is trivial to generalize. Careful observation resulting in nuanced findings is difficult precisely, because we tend to crave simple answers.
- zmxz 4y ago
  > Would you be willing to disclose your personal favorite measuring stick? Success is easy, failure is not. Step 1 - assess candidate knows the tech first (syntax, nomenclature). Step 2 - provide candidate with a problem that they can't solve and observe how they handle failure. A Kobayashi Maru type of scenario. After that, trial period of <n> months to observe how the introduction of new candidate changes team's dynamics. This is not, by any means, "the best" scenario but it beats "let's solve a trigonometry problem using python/c/c++" because it places the candidate in a situation that occurs during work.
- zmxz 4y ago
  > I wholeheartedly disagree. It is trivial to generalize. Careful observation resulting in nuanced findings is difficult precisely, because we tend to crave simple answers. Generalizing isn't always a bad thing, but this situation really is trivial to observe. There aren't too many possible outcomes. If (boss + worker) make money, (boss + worker) keep the job. If (boss + worker) don't make money, someone (or both) lose(s) the job because there's no $$ to pay them. It's extremely trivial because it all revolves around upkeep. Can you keep up paying thousands of people (pretty large) salaries over an undefined time period? If yes = they keep the job, if not = they don't. Most things are indeed trivial, especially in IT sector and employee compensation. I will accept we agree to disagree and I'm perfectly fine with it, but the wave of layoffs in IT sector is because of lack of money to pay salaries. The whole cause why there's no money, why work isn't optimal or why people aren't managed correctly is a different matter all together and plays a role. The bad part is that IT workers refuse to accept modicum of responsibility and consequences and are using social media to present the "higher ups" as some kind of scheming, evil people who gather together around Stonehenge once a month and discuss new ways how to spite and hurt people. It's just silly.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
    << I will accept we agree to disagree and I'm perfectly fine with it, but the wave of layoffs in IT sector is because of lack of money to pay salaries. I was with you. I was genuinely nodding along ( including the other comment ) until this portion. That is a hard no. Notice how there is seemingly simultaneously not enough money in the budget for tech workers ( I do not want to limit this conversation to IT support, which is what many equate IT with -- did the use of that acronym change ? ) while there is indeed money for MS executives to enjoy the show[1], money for bonuses[2] and.. I was going to end with a joke but decided against it. I am genuinely unsure how you can reasonably argue otherwise with a straight face. [1]https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-execs-private-sting-show-davos-before-mass-layoff-announcement-2023-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-execs-private-stin... [2]https://thrivetrm.com/executive-compensation-trends-benchmarks-a-zoom-in-on-mid-year-2022/ https://thrivetrm.com/executive-compensation-trends-benchmar...
    - 4y ago

by zmxz 4y ago

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago

<< Being able to solve rather trivial problem(s) that tutorial websites don't cover isn't valid measuring stick to assess someone's potential commercial viability. I hesitated a little bit, but I will admit you got me curious. The position assumes that you know a better way to assess that viability ( which assumes I accept that framing at face value -- I don't, but I want to get to the bottom of this argument ). Would you be willing to disclose your personal favorite measuring stick? << I'm not the one who created this situation, but it's trivial to observe. I wholeheartedly disagree. It is trivial to generalize. Careful observation resulting in nuanced findings is difficult precisely, because we tend to crave simple answers.

zmxz 4y ago
> Would you be willing to disclose your personal favorite measuring stick? Success is easy, failure is not. Step 1 - assess candidate knows the tech first (syntax, nomenclature). Step 2 - provide candidate with a problem that they can't solve and observe how they handle failure. A Kobayashi Maru type of scenario. After that, trial period of <n> months to observe how the introduction of new candidate changes team's dynamics. This is not, by any means, "the best" scenario but it beats "let's solve a trigonometry problem using python/c/c++" because it places the candidate in a situation that occurs during work.
zmxz 4y ago
> I wholeheartedly disagree. It is trivial to generalize. Careful observation resulting in nuanced findings is difficult precisely, because we tend to crave simple answers. Generalizing isn't always a bad thing, but this situation really is trivial to observe. There aren't too many possible outcomes. If (boss + worker) make money, (boss + worker) keep the job. If (boss + worker) don't make money, someone (or both) lose(s) the job because there's no $$ to pay them. It's extremely trivial because it all revolves around upkeep. Can you keep up paying thousands of people (pretty large) salaries over an undefined time period? If yes = they keep the job, if not = they don't. Most things are indeed trivial, especially in IT sector and employee compensation. I will accept we agree to disagree and I'm perfectly fine with it, but the wave of layoffs in IT sector is because of lack of money to pay salaries. The whole cause why there's no money, why work isn't optimal or why people aren't managed correctly is a different matter all together and plays a role. The bad part is that IT workers refuse to accept modicum of responsibility and consequences and are using social media to present the "higher ups" as some kind of scheming, evil people who gather together around Stonehenge once a month and discuss new ways how to spite and hurt people. It's just silly.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  << I will accept we agree to disagree and I'm perfectly fine with it, but the wave of layoffs in IT sector is because of lack of money to pay salaries. I was with you. I was genuinely nodding along ( including the other comment ) until this portion. That is a hard no. Notice how there is seemingly simultaneously not enough money in the budget for tech workers ( I do not want to limit this conversation to IT support, which is what many equate IT with -- did the use of that acronym change ? ) while there is indeed money for MS executives to enjoy the show[1], money for bonuses[2] and.. I was going to end with a joke but decided against it. I am genuinely unsure how you can reasonably argue otherwise with a straight face. [1]https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-execs-private-sting-show-davos-before-mass-layoff-announcement-2023-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-execs-private-stin... [2]https://thrivetrm.com/executive-compensation-trends-benchmarks-a-zoom-in-on-mid-year-2022/ https://thrivetrm.com/executive-compensation-trends-benchmar...
  - 4y ago