4 ms·

Truly without snark, what is it about y that makes it easier and dy/dx harder? I wonder if y is easier to fake? You can study the coding problems, there are wh

Truly without snark, what is it about y that makes it easier and dy/dx harder? I wonder if y is easier to fake? You can study the coding problems, there are whole books on that strategy. It seems like that would artificially increase your y, though it's probably a good indicator. To estimate dy/dx, I like to ask about how people learned new things. Have they managed to become experts on something like build systems or testing pipelines even though it was well outside their experience? Perhaps I am biased by the fact that I learned a bunch of languages in school that are almost exactly the languages I don't use. Almost all of it was learned on the job.

rahimnathwani 4y ago
> Truly without snark, what is it about y that makes it easier and dy/dx harder? Because you can measure y at a point in time. If you want to know if someone can operate an espresso machine and make good coffees, you can just ask them to do it, and watch them. If you want to know whether someone can learn to operate an espresso machine, you can: A) Ask them about how they learn new things, or B) Ask them to learn something new, and see how well they do, or C) Test them on multiple unrelated things, as being able to do a wide range of stuff that takes time to learn is evidence that they can learn stuff. A is tricky: someone who is good at interviewing could give answers that would fool most people. So it doesn't really measure dy/dx. B is great if you have the time, as it directly measures how fast and well they can learn something unfamiliar. C is good because you don't need to have them learn something new, but it's bad because you'd need to spend many hours to cover enough breadth AND you'd need to be competent at testing this broad range of skills. > I wonder if y is easier to fake? You can study the coding problems, there are whole books on that strategy. Yes, you can fake y specifically for FAANG-style coding interviews. But being able to fake y in this context is pretty good evidence you can learn new stuff!
- wnissen 4y ago
  My experience is that people tend to have fairly similar patterns of behavior. If they taught themselves a relevant new skill at their last job, they will probably teach themselves a relevant new skill at the next one. Google themselves admitted that they basically don't know how to interview well, which tends to suggest that style of coding question doesn't work especially well. You have some people who have faked y (false positives), and others who could very easily figure out y given a bit more time but don't do well under pressure (false negatives).
  - rahimnathwani 4y ago
    If they taught themselves a relevant new skill at their last job, they will probably teach themselves a relevant new skill at the next one. Totally! But what's a good way to reliably assess that in an interview? How can you estimate dy/dt, except by measuring y?

rahimnathwani 4y ago

> Truly without snark, what is it about y that makes it easier and dy/dx harder? Because you can measure y at a point in time. If you want to know if someone can operate an espresso machine and make good coffees, you can just ask them to do it, and watch them. If you want to know whether someone can learn to operate an espresso machine, you can: A) Ask them about how they learn new things, or B) Ask them to learn something new, and see how well they do, or C) Test them on multiple unrelated things, as being able to do a wide range of stuff that takes time to learn is evidence that they can learn stuff. A is tricky: someone who is good at interviewing could give answers that would fool most people. So it doesn't really measure dy/dx. B is great if you have the time, as it directly measures how fast and well they can learn something unfamiliar. C is good because you don't need to have them learn something new, but it's bad because you'd need to spend many hours to cover enough breadth AND you'd need to be competent at testing this broad range of skills. > I wonder if y is easier to fake? You can study the coding problems, there are whole books on that strategy. Yes, you can fake y specifically for FAANG-style coding interviews. But being able to fake y in this context is pretty good evidence you can learn new stuff!

wnissen 4y ago
My experience is that people tend to have fairly similar patterns of behavior. If they taught themselves a relevant new skill at their last job, they will probably teach themselves a relevant new skill at the next one. Google themselves admitted that they basically don't know how to interview well, which tends to suggest that style of coding question doesn't work especially well. You have some people who have faked y (false positives), and others who could very easily figure out y given a bit more time but don't do well under pressure (false negatives).
- rahimnathwani 4y ago
  If they taught themselves a relevant new skill at their last job, they will probably teach themselves a relevant new skill at the next one. Totally! But what's a good way to reliably assess that in an interview? How can you estimate dy/dt, except by measuring y?