5 ms·

The problem is that it might have been true at some point but now there are resources to “learn” for interviews, so currently you will get people willing to gri

The problem is that it might have been true at some point but now there are resources to “learn” for interviews, so currently you will get people willing to grind. Nobody happy with their pay and job is going to grind leetcode. They could just ignore leetcode and ask puzzle problems instead to test ability.

nfriedly 3y ago
Honestly, being "willing to grind" might be a good thing to target if it's a good proxy for being willing to do the work. However, I agree with the general sentiment that almost nobody is doing the research to ensure their interview process selects for the things they actually want.
- codeTired 3y ago
  I’m willing to grind if you present me with a real life problem you need solving. I’m not willing to run on a hamster wheel, it seems illogical to me.
  - brigadier132 3y ago
    1. Learning algorithms and practicing leetcode is not actually useless. A deep knowledge of algorithms falls under the category of high value knowledge that is not frequently needed. Its still high value when its needed and you cant predict when it is needed. 2. Its not a hamster wheel because you get a high paying job for your efforts
  - farhanhubble 3y ago
    My sentiment too. These Leetcode style websites will take an algorithm and then come up with a contorted problem that can be solved with that problem. Often the problem is not even worded precisely but people who have been wasting time on solving random problems can see the patterns apparently.
  - fnimick 3y ago
    And therefore you are not an employee they want. These companies don't want an employee who starts to question "why" things should be done or why things are important. Demonstrating that you are willing to apply yourself at something objectively useless simply because you are required to is a huge plus.
    - ngc248 3y ago
      This is the situation at most big companies.
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    Weeding out candidates who aren't willing to ride the hamster wheel is a huge point of leetcode.
- pseudalopex 3y ago
  > Honestly, being "willing to grind" might be a good thing to target if it's a good proxy for being willing to do the work. Grinding is a poor proxy for work ethic. It is a good proxy for submissiveness.
  - nfriedly 3y ago
    You might be right, but I think it could be both.
moregrist 3y ago
> They could just ignore leetcode and ask puzzle problems instead to test ability. One of the hiring fads before leetcode was to ask puzzle questions, with a heavy emphasis on Fermi questions and trick questions. These had the same failure modes. It turns out that hiring is hard, involves some risk, and always tends to illustrate Goodhart's Law: whatever process you put in place to avoid that risk will ultimately become worthless when people start optimizing for it.
ativzzz 3y ago
The people who are good at algorithms are grinders. There is a tiny percentage of geniuses who don't need to grind algorithms. The rest of the people who were good at algos before leetcode became widespread were also grinders In fact this is how you become "smart" - some talent and a lot of hard work (grind)
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > In fact this is how you become "smart" - some talent and a lot of hard work (grind) Hmm. I think this is a different definition of "smart" than I'm used to. I would say that some talent and a lot of hard work gets you "skilled", not necessarily "smart".
  - ativzzz 3y ago
    There are many different types of intelligences or smarts Skill is a form of "functional intelligence", where skill = talent + grind. The more talent, the less you need to grind, but combined the two are killer. To me, "smart" where the grind is 0 is not "smart", but just "lucky" (born with talent)
JohnFen 3y ago
> Nobody happy with their pay and job is going to grind leetcode. I'm not going to grind leetcode regardless of how happy I am with my pay and job. I have very strong objections it. If a company requires it, I take that as a pretty strong signal that I won't get along well at that company.

nfriedly 3y ago

Honestly, being "willing to grind" might be a good thing to target if it's a good proxy for being willing to do the work. However, I agree with the general sentiment that almost nobody is doing the research to ensure their interview process selects for the things they actually want.

codeTired 3y ago
I’m willing to grind if you present me with a real life problem you need solving. I’m not willing to run on a hamster wheel, it seems illogical to me.
- brigadier132 3y ago
  1. Learning algorithms and practicing leetcode is not actually useless. A deep knowledge of algorithms falls under the category of high value knowledge that is not frequently needed. Its still high value when its needed and you cant predict when it is needed. 2. Its not a hamster wheel because you get a high paying job for your efforts
- farhanhubble 3y ago
  My sentiment too. These Leetcode style websites will take an algorithm and then come up with a contorted problem that can be solved with that problem. Often the problem is not even worded precisely but people who have been wasting time on solving random problems can see the patterns apparently.
- fnimick 3y ago
  And therefore you are not an employee they want. These companies don't want an employee who starts to question "why" things should be done or why things are important. Demonstrating that you are willing to apply yourself at something objectively useless simply because you are required to is a huge plus.
  - ngc248 3y ago
    This is the situation at most big companies.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  Weeding out candidates who aren't willing to ride the hamster wheel is a huge point of leetcode.
pseudalopex 3y ago
> Honestly, being "willing to grind" might be a good thing to target if it's a good proxy for being willing to do the work. Grinding is a poor proxy for work ethic. It is a good proxy for submissiveness.
- nfriedly 3y ago
  You might be right, but I think it could be both.

moregrist 3y ago

> They could just ignore leetcode and ask puzzle problems instead to test ability. One of the hiring fads before leetcode was to ask puzzle questions, with a heavy emphasis on Fermi questions and trick questions. These had the same failure modes. It turns out that hiring is hard, involves some risk, and always tends to illustrate Goodhart's Law: whatever process you put in place to avoid that risk will ultimately become worthless when people start optimizing for it.

ativzzz 3y ago

The people who are good at algorithms are grinders. There is a tiny percentage of geniuses who don't need to grind algorithms. The rest of the people who were good at algos before leetcode became widespread were also grinders In fact this is how you become "smart" - some talent and a lot of hard work (grind)

JohnFen 3y ago
> In fact this is how you become "smart" - some talent and a lot of hard work (grind) Hmm. I think this is a different definition of "smart" than I'm used to. I would say that some talent and a lot of hard work gets you "skilled", not necessarily "smart".
- ativzzz 3y ago
  There are many different types of intelligences or smarts Skill is a form of "functional intelligence", where skill = talent + grind. The more talent, the less you need to grind, but combined the two are killer. To me, "smart" where the grind is 0 is not "smart", but just "lucky" (born with talent)

JohnFen 3y ago

> Nobody happy with their pay and job is going to grind leetcode. I'm not going to grind leetcode regardless of how happy I am with my pay and job. I have very strong objections it. If a company requires it, I take that as a pretty strong signal that I won't get along well at that company.