11 ms·

Oxide Hiring Process

73 points by jryb 3y ago

rajnathani 3y ago
So true the part about writing, I had a hard time articulating my thoughts about writing skill before reading this: > As a company, we believe that good writing is found in the best practitioners, regardless of role: the act of writing — like so much else that we do — requires not only the ability to create wholly new material, but also the ability to reflect, correct, revise, and polish.
the__alchemist 3y ago
> "What work have you found most challenging in your career and why? What work have you done that you are particularly proud of and why? When have you been happiest in your professional career and why? When have you been unhappiest in your professional career and why? For one of Oxide’s values, describe an example of how it was reflected in a particular body of your work. For one of Oxide’s values, describe an example of how it was violated in your organization or work." I feel like these are a test of creative writing skills, storytelling, believable exageration, and imagination more than their stated purpose. > "In other cases, it’s even more nuanced: there have been many later-in-life converts to the beauty and joy of computers, and such candidates should emphatically not be excluded merely because they discovered their calling later than others. For those that concentrated in entirely non-technical disciplines, further probing will likely be required, with greater emphasis on their technical artifacts." I love this section!
- superb_dev 3y ago
  I agree, I was turned off by their hiring process. I get it though, they’re a bold startup and they gotta make sure the talent is engaged
  - PoignardAzur 3y ago
    I was turned off too, though it might just be because I'm a junior and don't have big projects under my belt. But yeah, this process is daunting.
- jt2190 3y ago
  > … their stated purpose. The stated purpose being to assess shared values: > Values > Values are often not evaluated formally at all in the hiring process — yet shared values are essential for long-term success. Some questions should be asked to suss out a candidate’s values, e.g.: [the questions] I suppose that a candidate that fundamentally doesn’t have shared values could B.S. their way through this part, but I’m struggling to understand why they would.
- WaitWaitWha 3y ago
  If the question is just left hanging than I will agree, but ... Normally, I do ask these story telling questions. Tell me a story, then I will deep dive into them, dissect them, drill into the technology, relationships, communications, budgets, time frames and more. This is in lieu of me coming up with a set of rote questions that can answered in a sentence or two, then move to next topic. If the candidate is just telling me "believable exageration [sp], and imagination", it will come out real quick.
- throwawaysleep 3y ago
  Hiring is just being good at telling lies and playing games. Happily at a young age I realized that honesty only makes sense with your Doctor.
- icelancer 3y ago
  If companies do whiteboard coding, people get mad. If companies ask for longform answers, people get mad. If companies ask for code examples or public repos, people get mad. What I learned over a decade of running a company is that everyone gets mad about hiring practices, just do whatever you think is best and adjust over time. And stop taking advice from people since the Internet is full of many factions whose slices make up 100% of criticism over hiring practices, so it's impossible to get any signal out of it. True about many other things. Advice is largely useless. But especially for hiring.
- e12e 3y ago
  I'm guessing chat gpt will fill a role in drafting responses here. But will it play a role in surfacing applications? https://chat.openai.com/share/1607e7d6-ecd4-4024-bf25-9bd8bf3134e3 https://chat.openai.com/share/1607e7d6-ecd4-4024-bf25-9bd8bf...
- sunshowers 3y ago
  As a woman of integrity and current Oxide employee, I answered those questions quite honestly. Standard behavioral interviews have the same issue where you can certainly embellish or fabricate stories.
akamaka 3y ago
> we have generally found nine hours of interviews to be sufficient without being overly burdensome.
- azemetre 3y ago
  Is that unreasonable? I recently took a job where the interview process was over 6 weeks. Basically one hour a week speaking with another person on the team. I honestly enjoyed it as a candidate, it wasn't a huge ask on my part (easily to do one hour a week than take a PTO/sick day to interview) and I felt like I was able to "live" while interviewing and working too. If it's 9 hours in one day that's a lot, but if it's over 3 or 4 days it seems reasonable to me. I will say the worse interview I ever done was for Capital One. It's literally an entire 8 hour day where you get ask the same questions with different groups of people, scheduled with no breaks (no 10 minutes between sessions is not a sufficient break), getting ask LC-esque questions twice, system design, and 5 different behavioral sessions. Worst of all I never spoke with a single person who would be on my team, to make matters worse Capital One doesn't exactly pay well. It's a very average company, with average salaries, and average benefits. My interview at Meta was easier and more straight forward, it felt like they actually cared about my time as a candidate whereas Capital One puts you through the meat grinder and forces you into their terms.
  - steveklabnik 3y ago
    > If it's 9 hours in one day that's a lot, but if it's over 3 or 4 days it seems reasonable to me. We ask candidates to give us a schedule of when they are available, and then schedule against that. Some folks would prefer a long gauntlet all in a row, some folks prefer things to be spread out. This lets them do that.
- Dudester230602 3y ago
  That'd better be 1+% stock offered.
givemeethekeys 3y ago
It sounds like, in order to work at Oxide, I must be able to write, pitch, and engineer. I wonder if people who joined Apple, IBM, Dell, HP, Alienware etc.. were all renaissance artists.
- icelancer 3y ago
  The elite at Sun Microsystems largely did all three out of necessity. And that's who runs Oxide.
  - Always_Anon 3y ago
    >The elite at Sun Microsystems largely did all three out of necessity Some of it quite poorly, which is why Sun lost to Linux and other hardware companies, and why basically no one used Joyent. >And that's who runs Oxide. It's basically "rewrite it in Rust" Sun Microsystems. Best of luck, but I don't see them being anything besides a niche player with some interesting tech that doesn't beat the competition enough to matter.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
masto 3y ago
So much effort is put in to coming up with these systems and convincing ourselves that we've got the perfect hiring process, when in the end it's very likely that it doesn't work and is just a kind of ritual that has to exist so that you can defend your decisions by pointing to all the hoops you made people jump through.
- icelancer 3y ago
  No hiring practices work. Which means that you might as well go with the one you like most. There are some hiring practices that really suck, of course. So probably don't do those, like choosing people randomly or based on illegal discrimination. But beyond that, just do whatever and iterate.
  - beezlebroxxxxxx 3y ago
    The best hiring I've done, and been a part of, has had 2 very clear features: 1. The expectations and details in the job were specific to the actual exact role I would be filling and were clearly laid out in the job posting. 2. The "interview" was really just a single long conversation on those specific details and a discussion over whether I fit them and can show/discuss examples of how I fit them. A lot of hiring nonsense is because the actual job requirements and posting is so generic as to be practically meaningless, so you create these pointless hoops to jump through in order weed out an individual from a pool of other generic individuals. The actual employee you pick ends up simply being really good at jumping through hoops rather than a good hire for the specific role. Crazy multi-step hiring processes just seem like selecting for endurance over any ability as a future employee.
  - throwawaaarrgh 3y ago
    This sounds like somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about and is proud of it
    - jghn 3y ago
      This has been studied in the past [1] and the results aren't good [1] One example: https://home.ubalt.edu/tmitch/645/session%204/Schmidt%20&%20Oh%20validity%20and%20util%20100%20yrs%20of%20research%20Wk%20PPR%202016.pdf https://home.ubalt.edu/tmitch/645/session%204/Schmidt%20&%20...
jeberle 3y ago
§3.1 Timely rejection is key. Ghosting a candidate as a sign of no-move-forward is beyond crass.
- _whiteCaps_ 3y ago
  I appreciate this. They don't ghost, although they do take longer than others to respond. I went from application on 14/3/22 to rejection on 4/4/22.
netr0ute 3y ago
I'm struggling to read past the first couple paragraphs because the whole thing reeks of pretentiousness. How does that even happen?
- akaike 3y ago
  I agree
- TulliusCicero 3y ago
  100% agreed. Almost feels like the author is trying to write poetry in parts of it. This style of writing gets in the way of actually communicating. It's harder for me to see what the actual process is. Though, maybe they want to filter for people who enjoy writing this way, and to filter out anyone who wants more straightforward comms. In that case, it'd be low key brilliant.
- UncleOxidant 3y ago
  I see what you mean. "They must be able to build castles of imagination, and yet still understand the constraints of a grimy reality: they must be arrogant enough to see the world as it isn’t, but humble enough to accept the world as it is. Each of these is a balance, and for each, long-practicing engineers will cite colleagues who have been ineffective because they have erred too greatly on one side or another." Ooof... where are you going to find these paragons of balance? It almost sounds like they're searching in Zen temples or something.
- jofla_net 3y ago
  The current job market is breeding some really crazy hubris stuff like this. I was foolish enough to do a huge project (wish we could all agree against as an industry wide boycott, but alas I fell into it as well) this summer. It landed over 1200 lines. In the end it wasn't even viewed! and i have proof. So any output of this magnitude ends up being a colossal waste of time, i sure hope wouldn't make again. Fingers crossed.
h2odragon 3y ago
I don't want to work with their team; I'm bad with people (I'm assume they're all people). I would like them to loan me one of their stacks for a while and maybe pay me to come up with some neat stuff for it to do. And bullfrogs want wings, so they don't bump they little butts when they hop.
- maplant 3y ago
  What?
  - doomroot 3y ago
    It’s over your head. You wouldn’t understand.
  - h2odragon 3y ago
    unrealistic dreams.
jmwilson 3y ago
The amount of written material (work samples, writing samples, free-form essay responses) they request is staggering. There is no guarantee they will read your responses with the same care you put into writing them - almost certainly they won't, since they have actual work to do and an honest reading of over a dozen responses, on technical subjects, is easily a huge chunk of a day. At least with a real-time interview, if you're wasting my time, I'm wasting an equal amount of yours. There is an incentive for the interviewer to get the signal they need to make a decision and respect the candidate's time, since it's their time too. This hiring approach won't scale, for them, or the people they need to hire, if they expand, so at some point they will be forced to change it. Until then, I think the better approach if you're interested in a place like this is to be so awesome they have to call you first.
- steveklabnik 3y ago
  It is true that we ask a lot upfront. But just to be clear about a few things: > There is no guarantee they will read your responses with the same care you put into writing them Multiple people review every single submission. > almost certainly they won't, since they have actual work to do an honest reading This is why there is such lag time in even getting a response; you are correct that it takes a tremendous amount of work, but also that there's a tremendous amount of non-hiring work to do. We are not always perfect at balancing these things, and the queue can grow. > so at some point they will be forced to change it. I am in full agreement that as companies grow and change, their processes must also grow and change. That doesn't mean that the initial processes are inappropriate. That's the nature of building something new. We will see at what point changing this process makes sense. It's worked decently well from the first founders (who themselves underwent this process, with each other) up to our current size of about sixty. And speaking purely for myself, the problem as I see it is that we have to say "no" to some wonderful folks, not that we struggle to find people to apply.
  - slillibri 3y ago
    With the large up front ask, do you put an equal amount of time and effort into explaining why you pass on a candidate? My biggest issue with tech hiring is the complete and utter lack of feedback of any sort.
FlyingSnake 3y ago
9+ hours of interview process for a salary of $201,227 USD. Isn't this bit too much?¹ This reminds me of the impractical and absurd hiring process of Canonical.² 1: https://oxide.computer/careers https://oxide.computer/careers 2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37059857 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37059857
- steveklabnik 3y ago
  It was even less money when I joined. You're also leaving out stock, which absolutely makes sense to value at $0 at this early stage of the company, but there is more upside potential as well. No regrets on taking a pay cut, personally. It is true that I could make a larger salary elsewhere; I also would not be working on this product with this team.
  - jrozner 3y ago
    After reading the policy when the blog post came out, I think one negative thing about it is that it can self select for people generally later in their career or with a much bigger safety net. When you have a 10-20+ tech career and the money saved up, like the founders and many of the early employees, it can be much easier to say that’s enough to cover expenses. I have nothing against it as a policy and I think there are definitely benefits to it. I just think that the biases aren’t clearly talked about either.
    - vulcan01 3y ago
      > self select for people generally later in their career or with a much bigger safety net They're still basically a startup / pre-stable revenue, and most folks at startups are not risk-averse. So I'm not sure this bias really affects them at this stage of the company; even if they didn't have this hiring policy the people who want to work at startups have the same characteristics.
- ctvo 3y ago
  What an industry we're fortunate to work in. > 9+ hours of interview process for a salary of $201,227 USD. Isn't this bit too much?¹
qd011 3y ago
So what is the Oxide hiring process? > Interviews shouldn’t necessarily take one form; interviewers should feel free to take a variety of styles and approaches I guess we still don't know. > Author: Bryan Cantrill > the act of writing — like so much else that we do — requires not only the ability to create wholly new material, but also the ability to reflect, correct, revise, and polish. Oh Bryan, you could have spent your time doing some actual work instead of being pretentious to the tune of 4700 words and still not saying anything useful to anyone.
- throwawaaarrgh 3y ago
  At least now we know how the company is run
- shrubble 3y ago
  This is golden as a response to Bryan Cantrill! It's right up there with 'do you have a Putnam?' being asked of cperciva :-)
  - qd011 3y ago
    What's your point, that I shouldn't criticise him because he has a wikipedia page? A bad article is bad regardless of what the author has achieved during his career as a whole.
- bcantrill 3y ago
  So, hiring is the most important thing we do -- and much of the reason that we've been able to do what we've been able to do with an extraordinarily small team is because of the care the team takes with respect to hiring. I appreciate that our style and yours differ greatly; it sounds like we wouldn't particularly like working with one another -- and we both can take solace that with this document (and your comment here!), there is no doubt.
throwawaaarrgh 3y ago
You know how I know somebody is out of touch with reality? When they have "technical beliefs".
datadeft 3y ago
Javascript strikes again: chunk-Z7TDCR3L.js:6 Uncaught Error: Minified React error #418; visit https://reactjs.org/docs/error-decoder.html? invariant=418 for the full message or use the non-minified dev environment for full errors and additional helpful warnings. at ki (chunk-Z7TDCR3L.js:6:4780) at Ba (chunk-Z7TDCR3L.js:8:45229) at Ua (chunk-Z7TDCR3L.js:8:39459) at Af (chunk-Z7TDCR3L.js:8:39432) at Fa (chunk-Z7TDCR3L.js:8:34497) at Sl (chunk-Z7TDCR3L.js:1:1717) at MessagePort.hl (chunk-Z7TDCR3L.js:1:2107)
- tiagod 3y ago
  That's a classic one. I bet they are either rendering a date and the server timezone is different than your browser, or some browser extension is injecting HTML and messing the diff up.
renewiltord 3y ago
Well, they have a very strong team, so I can only assume that: - their process works - they skip it for the right candidate
- steveklabnik 3y ago
  It is not skipped for anyone. Even the cofounders did it, with the other two reviewing.
pc_edwin 3y ago
I never understand why these kinds of practices gets so much hate. If you have the qualifications for this type of job (high skill high pay) then life is pretty much choose your adventure mode. There are people in this world who would willingly play a modded version of a game which has a level harder than hardcore. On the other end of the extremes, you have people actively looking for "Rest and vest" gigs. The people working at SpaceX or Apple under Jobs are one of the most highly sought after talent in the world. They are no forced out of circumstances or coerced into any of this.
- akaike 3y ago
  I believe it's primarily because companies with such high requirements are not on par with big players like Apple or SpaceX. Yet, they seek highly skilled individuals —who could secure better-paid positions elsewhere, to dedicate multiple days merely to apply to their organization, which is relatively insignificant compared to others. Why would someone with high-level skills even consider wasting their time on such a task when the potential salary doesn't match what they could earn elsewhere? For those with exceptional abilities, time is money, and this essentially amounts to unpaid time wasted. These requirements are just out of touch with the reality.
  - steveklabnik 3y ago
    It is true that not everyone is going to find the salary or process works for them, even if they are fantastic engineers. However, we have found that many people do find it compelling. Not everyone is purely looking at base salary as a reason to take a job. As mentioned elsewhere, I took a pay cut for this job, and am happy with my decision.
  - sunshowers 3y ago
    My goal in life is not to make the greatest amount of money possible. Mission, vision, values, culture, peer group—these matter a lot to me as well. I also have been lucky to have enough saved, and can take risks for something I believe in. (I currently work at Oxide, having taken a pay cut.)
  - 3y ago
jrmg 3y ago
To assess analytical ability, candidates should be asked to provide an analysis sample: a written analysis from the candidate. As with the work and writing sample, the specifics of the prompt will vary by domain: for engineers, this should be the analysis that the candidate performed of a system behaving pathologically; for sales, this might be the research the candidate performed of a prospect and their fit with the product before reaching out to them; for operations, this might be the examination of an existing process with an eye towards improvement; for product management, this might be the exploration of a new system or of a new aspect of the system. Regardless of domain, the sample should contain enough concrete detail to assess analytical ability, with the candidate asked to recall details to the best of their ability. Given the level of detail requested here, in writing, this feels like it’s requiring proprietary information from a previous job. I don’t think many people do “analysis [...] of a system behaving pathologically,” or “perform[] [analysis] of a [sales] prospect and their fit with the product before reaching out to them” on their own.
- steveklabnik 3y ago
  We do not solicit proprietary information. It is true that it is more difficult for a candidate who has done more private, or NDA'd, work than someone who has done a lot of open source work. But we understand if details need to be elided in order to be respectful of previous commitments. We have hired people in all of these various states before. > I don’t think many people do [snip] on their own. It is true that many people need to do new work as part of the application process. I wrote a large portion of my packet from scratch.
  - Paul-Craft 3y ago
    > It is true that it is more difficult for a candidate who has done more private, or NDA'd, work than someone who has done a lot of open source work. I hope you realize as well that approximately everybody is the former sort of candidate.
    - steveklabnik 3y ago
      Most people are in the middle. They can discuss previous work on some level. Yes, most people’s jobs are not purely in open source. That doesn’t mean they can’t discuss previous work they’ve done. Every employer wants to hear about past accomplishments in some form.
jakebasile 3y ago
They say to expect 9 hours of interviews, on top of all this homework. All-in, this looks like it would take at minimum one full day of work just writing on top of at least one extra-full day of interviewing and that's not including time to research, think, and copyedit the written homework or generate work samples if they don't already exist. Later on it insinuates the candidate would be expected to read internal issues and documentation requiring yet more of the candidates time - all for free without even the promise of an offer yet. This is essentially the same as Canonical's well-known and ridiculed process, except this is from a hot startup so it might get a pass. I have nothing but the strongest distaste for LeetCode interviews but this is another flavor of absurd that still takes a huge time commitment from the interviewee which inherently discriminates against those already employed, those later in life, and those interviewing at more than one company. More evidence for my big binder of evidence that interviewing culture in our industry is entirely some grotesque form of hazing ritual that builds upon itself, with each company and team deciding that the specific form of pain that they had to go through is the ideal form to subject candidates to in order to justify the pain inflicted on them.
- steveklabnik 3y ago
  For what it's worth, I hear your concerns re: the kind of person that can apply, but in practice, my co-workers at Oxide are more "later in life" than in any other job I have previously worked at. I have personally regarded that as a positive.
  - jakebasile 3y ago
    Appreciate the response, and I'm glad you have a team of experienced teammates. This industry struggles with ageism so it's nice to hear when that cycle is broken. As you can tell I take a dim view of most of our industry practices around hiring and it's one of those things that can rile me up. I think the vast majority of interview structures are heavily weighted toward favoring fresh grads (more time to dedicate to prep, fresher knowledge of the type of rote CS stuff that you learn in college but rarely used in industry, more willingness to put up with onerous interview requirements). I think it's likely because less experienced employees tend to be easier for companies to exploit, and so companies allow it to continue by feeding into my above-mentioned theory of hazing. Interview practices like we have impact people in negative ways small and large, yet I have seen no evidence that they produce better results than more humane methods. I hope that as Oxide grows and succeeds (and I do wish y'all the best!) that you're able to either streamline your interview process to be more accessible and/or offer alternate paths.
akaike 3y ago
American companies often seem to be out of touch with reality. Who would want to waste so much of their time on a process that ultimately benefits the company's CEO? This seems to be a good example of such a company. The hiring process in most German companies is much more humane and efficient
camdenlock 3y ago
… why does everything that comes out of this company smell scammy / cultish?
thraway3837 3y ago
1. Something about this thread is really bad taste: A user "steveklabnik" responds to many of the questions with point blank "if it sucks, you're welcome to not apply here" and other prescriptive/absolute type explanations to the concern rather than actually addressing it. Examples: "Multiple people review every single submission." " Any application process is a two-way street. It is absolutely fine for you to decide to opt to not apply. Maybe someday we'll have a different process, or maybe it was just never meant to be :)" I would advise Oxide that if SteveKlabnik is not in the PR field with experience in handling HR style topics such as this thread, then to have Steve refrain from doing so, because this isn't helping the community perception of Oxide. You're getting destroyed in the comments. https://steveklabnik.com/writing/today-is-my-first-day-at-oxide-computer-company https://steveklabnik.com/writing/today-is-my-first-day-at-ox... ("Steve Klabnik is the Community Team Leader for the Rust team at Mozilla") 2. Publishing the exact hiring process is a refreshing and welcome step in the industry where interviews are a black box. I also welcome the work that's been done to reduce as much bias as possible. However, this all begs the question: Do we really need this much evaluation in trying to hire an employee? I believe the pandemic and WFH has shown that people want to prioritize their personal and family lives more than "giving it all" to the workplace. The sense I get from reading the Oxide hiring process is one where you truly have to believe and be in love with the Oxide culture. Why? Why can't we just treat work as a means to an end, and that you can still good quality work with that style of thinking? It does not have to be an either/or, but the hiring process document makes it seem like it's "you either fit into our style and values, or you don't". Why the gatekeeping? 2a. The amount of hoops software engineering folks have to go through to land a job is just mostly made up stuff, based on no studies or research on workforce hiring, and at a startup, HR is just really payroll, with no formal processes on handling grievances, human process, etc. 2b. Having said 2 and 2a. Why do we, as an industry seem to mired in spending so much effort on weeding people out? What are we scared of? All of us have worked with people we don't like, or that we feel were not good enough (caliber, skillset, professionalism, etc.), but this and other process isn't helping. What if we changed our mindset to actually trusting and believing in people to do the best they can rather than send them so much homework, have them sit through panel interviews and then conclude with "hire, do not hire" and then provide the candidate absolutely no feedback on what went wrong. Why can't we seem to disrupt this. It's tiring, and it shows in this thread that people are quite honestly sick of it. 3. Personally, when I attend future interviews, I want to have a hard boundary for the type of questions that get asked. If I get thrown a "reverse this integer" style question or "lets do TDD on the white board", I think as a collective we need to walk out or stop the interviewer and put them on the spot and go "You really want to waste an hour of my time asking basic questions like this? Don't you want to know how to solve real problems that you're currently facing or are you not facing any challenging problems so you want play with puzzles and waste my time?" I would bet if the masses resisted and took this course, interviews would change drastically and quickly. EDIT: @Oxide, bcantrill isn't helping in the comment section either. This isn't going well for you and I strongly advise you to hire HR or PR to handle commentary and writing about these things rather than engineers/founders.
fleabitdev 3y ago
Sensitivity and specificity [0] seem relevant here. Every interview stage which is designed to reject bad candidates (true negatives) will also accidentally reject some good candidates (false negatives). The more eagerly you filter out bad candidates, the more you'll also filter out good candidates; sensitivity decreases as specificity increases. This means that building more pass/fail tests into your interview pipeline may produce worse results - even if you have an enormous number of applicants, all with infinite time and patience! At each interview stage, there's a risk of accidentally rejecting the best remaining applicant, the one who would have outperformed all others if they were hired. For example, the article mentions "values mismatch" as a particularly good reason to hard-reject a candidate, but several of the company's values seem like they ought to be optional. Surely some truly excellent software developers lack courage, humour, and thriftiness? Could those qualities just as well be taught on-the-job? Could a non-courageous hire have useful things to teach you about caution? Good hiring processes should draw a clear distinction between "must-have" qualities and "nice-to-have" qualities. Beyond a certain point, the problem stops being "filter out bad candidates", and starts being "out of several great candidates, make sure we choose the best one"; to solve those two problems, different tools are required. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_and_specificity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_and_specificity
jrozner 3y ago
I applied almost two years ago. I am excited about what Oxide is doing and it felt like a fun opportunity. While I respect what they do around comp, for where I was in my life and goals I had set, it was going to be rough. I applied anyway at the encouragement of a friend who worked there. I think the packet process is awful. So much unnecessary work and frankly by the end I just sort of phoned it in because I lost interest. It took about two months to hear back (I applied in December 2021 and heard back February 2022) and get rejected and got nothing more than a generic form rejection letter after all the time spent on preparing the packet. ——— We are so humbled by your application to join Oxide Computer Company. At this stage of the company we are hyper-focused on certain areas of the stack and when we need specific domain space experience such as yours, please engage with us. Our roles will be updated as we need them. We are grateful you took the time to apply and put so much thought into the candidate materials, we loved reading them. We would absolutely love to work with you in the future and cannot wait for that stage of the company! All the best, The Oxide Team
jsyang00 3y ago
Guess I'll know I've made it as an engineer when I could plausibly fill out this application...
camila45 3y ago
[flagged]
camila45 3y ago
[flagged]

73 points by jryb 3y ago

So true the part about writing, I had a hard time articulating my thoughts about writing skill before reading this: > As a company, we believe that good writing is found in the best practitioners, regardless of role: the act of writing — like so much else that we do — requires not only the ability to create wholly new material, but also the ability to reflect, correct, revise, and polish.

the__alchemist 3y ago

> "What work have you found most challenging in your career and why? What work have you done that you are particularly proud of and why? When have you been happiest in your professional career and why? When have you been unhappiest in your professional career and why? For one of Oxide’s values, describe an example of how it was reflected in a particular body of your work. For one of Oxide’s values, describe an example of how it was violated in your organization or work." I feel like these are a test of creative writing skills, storytelling, believable exageration, and imagination more than their stated purpose. > "In other cases, it’s even more nuanced: there have been many later-in-life converts to the beauty and joy of computers, and such candidates should emphatically not be excluded merely because they discovered their calling later than others. For those that concentrated in entirely non-technical disciplines, further probing will likely be required, with greater emphasis on their technical artifacts." I love this section!

superb_dev 3y ago
I agree, I was turned off by their hiring process. I get it though, they’re a bold startup and they gotta make sure the talent is engaged
- PoignardAzur 3y ago
  I was turned off too, though it might just be because I'm a junior and don't have big projects under my belt. But yeah, this process is daunting.
jt2190 3y ago
> … their stated purpose. The stated purpose being to assess shared values: > Values > Values are often not evaluated formally at all in the hiring process — yet shared values are essential for long-term success. Some questions should be asked to suss out a candidate’s values, e.g.: [the questions] I suppose that a candidate that fundamentally doesn’t have shared values could B.S. their way through this part, but I’m struggling to understand why they would.
WaitWaitWha 3y ago
If the question is just left hanging than I will agree, but ... Normally, I do ask these story telling questions. Tell me a story, then I will deep dive into them, dissect them, drill into the technology, relationships, communications, budgets, time frames and more. This is in lieu of me coming up with a set of rote questions that can answered in a sentence or two, then move to next topic. If the candidate is just telling me "believable exageration [sp], and imagination", it will come out real quick.
throwawaysleep 3y ago
Hiring is just being good at telling lies and playing games. Happily at a young age I realized that honesty only makes sense with your Doctor.
icelancer 3y ago
If companies do whiteboard coding, people get mad. If companies ask for longform answers, people get mad. If companies ask for code examples or public repos, people get mad. What I learned over a decade of running a company is that everyone gets mad about hiring practices, just do whatever you think is best and adjust over time. And stop taking advice from people since the Internet is full of many factions whose slices make up 100% of criticism over hiring practices, so it's impossible to get any signal out of it. True about many other things. Advice is largely useless. But especially for hiring.
e12e 3y ago
I'm guessing chat gpt will fill a role in drafting responses here. But will it play a role in surfacing applications? https://chat.openai.com/share/1607e7d6-ecd4-4024-bf25-9bd8bf3134e3 https://chat.openai.com/share/1607e7d6-ecd4-4024-bf25-9bd8bf...
sunshowers 3y ago
As a woman of integrity and current Oxide employee, I answered those questions quite honestly. Standard behavioral interviews have the same issue where you can certainly embellish or fabricate stories.

akamaka 3y ago

> we have generally found nine hours of interviews to be sufficient without being overly burdensome.

azemetre 3y ago
Is that unreasonable? I recently took a job where the interview process was over 6 weeks. Basically one hour a week speaking with another person on the team. I honestly enjoyed it as a candidate, it wasn't a huge ask on my part (easily to do one hour a week than take a PTO/sick day to interview) and I felt like I was able to "live" while interviewing and working too. If it's 9 hours in one day that's a lot, but if it's over 3 or 4 days it seems reasonable to me. I will say the worse interview I ever done was for Capital One. It's literally an entire 8 hour day where you get ask the same questions with different groups of people, scheduled with no breaks (no 10 minutes between sessions is not a sufficient break), getting ask LC-esque questions twice, system design, and 5 different behavioral sessions. Worst of all I never spoke with a single person who would be on my team, to make matters worse Capital One doesn't exactly pay well. It's a very average company, with average salaries, and average benefits. My interview at Meta was easier and more straight forward, it felt like they actually cared about my time as a candidate whereas Capital One puts you through the meat grinder and forces you into their terms.
- steveklabnik 3y ago
  > If it's 9 hours in one day that's a lot, but if it's over 3 or 4 days it seems reasonable to me. We ask candidates to give us a schedule of when they are available, and then schedule against that. Some folks would prefer a long gauntlet all in a row, some folks prefer things to be spread out. This lets them do that.
Dudester230602 3y ago
That'd better be 1+% stock offered.

givemeethekeys 3y ago

It sounds like, in order to work at Oxide, I must be able to write, pitch, and engineer. I wonder if people who joined Apple, IBM, Dell, HP, Alienware etc.. were all renaissance artists.

icelancer 3y ago
The elite at Sun Microsystems largely did all three out of necessity. And that's who runs Oxide.
- Always_Anon 3y ago
  >The elite at Sun Microsystems largely did all three out of necessity Some of it quite poorly, which is why Sun lost to Linux and other hardware companies, and why basically no one used Joyent. >And that's who runs Oxide. It's basically "rewrite it in Rust" Sun Microsystems. Best of luck, but I don't see them being anything besides a niche player with some interesting tech that doesn't beat the competition enough to matter.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

masto 3y ago

So much effort is put in to coming up with these systems and convincing ourselves that we've got the perfect hiring process, when in the end it's very likely that it doesn't work and is just a kind of ritual that has to exist so that you can defend your decisions by pointing to all the hoops you made people jump through.

icelancer 3y ago
No hiring practices work. Which means that you might as well go with the one you like most. There are some hiring practices that really suck, of course. So probably don't do those, like choosing people randomly or based on illegal discrimination. But beyond that, just do whatever and iterate.
- beezlebroxxxxxx 3y ago
  The best hiring I've done, and been a part of, has had 2 very clear features: 1. The expectations and details in the job were specific to the actual exact role I would be filling and were clearly laid out in the job posting. 2. The "interview" was really just a single long conversation on those specific details and a discussion over whether I fit them and can show/discuss examples of how I fit them. A lot of hiring nonsense is because the actual job requirements and posting is so generic as to be practically meaningless, so you create these pointless hoops to jump through in order weed out an individual from a pool of other generic individuals. The actual employee you pick ends up simply being really good at jumping through hoops rather than a good hire for the specific role. Crazy multi-step hiring processes just seem like selecting for endurance over any ability as a future employee.
- throwawaaarrgh 3y ago
  This sounds like somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about and is proud of it
  - jghn 3y ago
    This has been studied in the past [1] and the results aren't good [1] One example: https://home.ubalt.edu/tmitch/645/session%204/Schmidt%20&%20Oh%20validity%20and%20util%20100%20yrs%20of%20research%20Wk%20PPR%202016.pdf https://home.ubalt.edu/tmitch/645/session%204/Schmidt%20&%20...

jeberle 3y ago

§3.1 Timely rejection is key. Ghosting a candidate as a sign of no-move-forward is beyond crass.

_whiteCaps_ 3y ago
I appreciate this. They don't ghost, although they do take longer than others to respond. I went from application on 14/3/22 to rejection on 4/4/22.

netr0ute 3y ago

I'm struggling to read past the first couple paragraphs because the whole thing reeks of pretentiousness. How does that even happen?

akaike 3y ago
I agree
TulliusCicero 3y ago
100% agreed. Almost feels like the author is trying to write poetry in parts of it. This style of writing gets in the way of actually communicating. It's harder for me to see what the actual process is. Though, maybe they want to filter for people who enjoy writing this way, and to filter out anyone who wants more straightforward comms. In that case, it'd be low key brilliant.
UncleOxidant 3y ago
I see what you mean. "They must be able to build castles of imagination, and yet still understand the constraints of a grimy reality: they must be arrogant enough to see the world as it isn’t, but humble enough to accept the world as it is. Each of these is a balance, and for each, long-practicing engineers will cite colleagues who have been ineffective because they have erred too greatly on one side or another." Ooof... where are you going to find these paragons of balance? It almost sounds like they're searching in Zen temples or something.
jofla_net 3y ago
The current job market is breeding some really crazy hubris stuff like this. I was foolish enough to do a huge project (wish we could all agree against as an industry wide boycott, but alas I fell into it as well) this summer. It landed over 1200 lines. In the end it wasn't even viewed! and i have proof. So any output of this magnitude ends up being a colossal waste of time, i sure hope wouldn't make again. Fingers crossed.

h2odragon 3y ago

I don't want to work with their team; I'm bad with people (I'm assume they're all people). I would like them to loan me one of their stacks for a while and maybe pay me to come up with some neat stuff for it to do. And bullfrogs want wings, so they don't bump they little butts when they hop.

maplant 3y ago
What?
- doomroot 3y ago
  It’s over your head. You wouldn’t understand.
- h2odragon 3y ago
  unrealistic dreams.

jmwilson 3y ago

The amount of written material (work samples, writing samples, free-form essay responses) they request is staggering. There is no guarantee they will read your responses with the same care you put into writing them - almost certainly they won't, since they have actual work to do and an honest reading of over a dozen responses, on technical subjects, is easily a huge chunk of a day. At least with a real-time interview, if you're wasting my time, I'm wasting an equal amount of yours. There is an incentive for the interviewer to get the signal they need to make a decision and respect the candidate's time, since it's their time too. This hiring approach won't scale, for them, or the people they need to hire, if they expand, so at some point they will be forced to change it. Until then, I think the better approach if you're interested in a place like this is to be so awesome they have to call you first.

steveklabnik 3y ago
It is true that we ask a lot upfront. But just to be clear about a few things: > There is no guarantee they will read your responses with the same care you put into writing them Multiple people review every single submission. > almost certainly they won't, since they have actual work to do an honest reading This is why there is such lag time in even getting a response; you are correct that it takes a tremendous amount of work, but also that there's a tremendous amount of non-hiring work to do. We are not always perfect at balancing these things, and the queue can grow. > so at some point they will be forced to change it. I am in full agreement that as companies grow and change, their processes must also grow and change. That doesn't mean that the initial processes are inappropriate. That's the nature of building something new. We will see at what point changing this process makes sense. It's worked decently well from the first founders (who themselves underwent this process, with each other) up to our current size of about sixty. And speaking purely for myself, the problem as I see it is that we have to say "no" to some wonderful folks, not that we struggle to find people to apply.
- slillibri 3y ago
  With the large up front ask, do you put an equal amount of time and effort into explaining why you pass on a candidate? My biggest issue with tech hiring is the complete and utter lack of feedback of any sort.

FlyingSnake 3y ago

9+ hours of interview process for a salary of $201,227 USD. Isn't this bit too much?¹ This reminds me of the impractical and absurd hiring process of Canonical.² 1: https://oxide.computer/careers https://oxide.computer/careers 2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37059857 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37059857

steveklabnik 3y ago
It was even less money when I joined. You're also leaving out stock, which absolutely makes sense to value at $0 at this early stage of the company, but there is more upside potential as well. No regrets on taking a pay cut, personally. It is true that I could make a larger salary elsewhere; I also would not be working on this product with this team.
- jrozner 3y ago
  After reading the policy when the blog post came out, I think one negative thing about it is that it can self select for people generally later in their career or with a much bigger safety net. When you have a 10-20+ tech career and the money saved up, like the founders and many of the early employees, it can be much easier to say that’s enough to cover expenses. I have nothing against it as a policy and I think there are definitely benefits to it. I just think that the biases aren’t clearly talked about either.
  - vulcan01 3y ago
    > self select for people generally later in their career or with a much bigger safety net They're still basically a startup / pre-stable revenue, and most folks at startups are not risk-averse. So I'm not sure this bias really affects them at this stage of the company; even if they didn't have this hiring policy the people who want to work at startups have the same characteristics.
ctvo 3y ago
What an industry we're fortunate to work in. > 9+ hours of interview process for a salary of $201,227 USD. Isn't this bit too much?¹

qd011 3y ago

So what is the Oxide hiring process? > Interviews shouldn’t necessarily take one form; interviewers should feel free to take a variety of styles and approaches I guess we still don't know. > Author: Bryan Cantrill > the act of writing — like so much else that we do — requires not only the ability to create wholly new material, but also the ability to reflect, correct, revise, and polish. Oh Bryan, you could have spent your time doing some actual work instead of being pretentious to the tune of 4700 words and still not saying anything useful to anyone.

throwawaaarrgh 3y ago
At least now we know how the company is run
shrubble 3y ago
This is golden as a response to Bryan Cantrill! It's right up there with 'do you have a Putnam?' being asked of cperciva :-)
- qd011 3y ago
  What's your point, that I shouldn't criticise him because he has a wikipedia page? A bad article is bad regardless of what the author has achieved during his career as a whole.
bcantrill 3y ago
So, hiring is the most important thing we do -- and much of the reason that we've been able to do what we've been able to do with an extraordinarily small team is because of the care the team takes with respect to hiring. I appreciate that our style and yours differ greatly; it sounds like we wouldn't particularly like working with one another -- and we both can take solace that with this document (and your comment here!), there is no doubt.

throwawaaarrgh 3y ago

You know how I know somebody is out of touch with reality? When they have "technical beliefs".

datadeft 3y ago

Javascript strikes again: chunk-Z7TDCR3L.js:6 Uncaught Error: Minified React error #418; visit https://reactjs.org/docs/error-decoder.html? invariant=418 for the full message or use the non-minified dev environment for full errors and additional helpful warnings. at ki (chunk-Z7TDCR3L.js:6:4780) at Ba (chunk-Z7TDCR3L.js:8:45229) at Ua (chunk-Z7TDCR3L.js:8:39459) at Af (chunk-Z7TDCR3L.js:8:39432) at Fa (chunk-Z7TDCR3L.js:8:34497) at Sl (chunk-Z7TDCR3L.js:1:1717) at MessagePort.hl (chunk-Z7TDCR3L.js:1:2107)

tiagod 3y ago
That's a classic one. I bet they are either rendering a date and the server timezone is different than your browser, or some browser extension is injecting HTML and messing the diff up.

renewiltord 3y ago

Well, they have a very strong team, so I can only assume that: - their process works - they skip it for the right candidate

steveklabnik 3y ago
It is not skipped for anyone. Even the cofounders did it, with the other two reviewing.

pc_edwin 3y ago

I never understand why these kinds of practices gets so much hate. If you have the qualifications for this type of job (high skill high pay) then life is pretty much choose your adventure mode. There are people in this world who would willingly play a modded version of a game which has a level harder than hardcore. On the other end of the extremes, you have people actively looking for "Rest and vest" gigs. The people working at SpaceX or Apple under Jobs are one of the most highly sought after talent in the world. They are no forced out of circumstances or coerced into any of this.

akaike 3y ago
I believe it's primarily because companies with such high requirements are not on par with big players like Apple or SpaceX. Yet, they seek highly skilled individuals —who could secure better-paid positions elsewhere, to dedicate multiple days merely to apply to their organization, which is relatively insignificant compared to others. Why would someone with high-level skills even consider wasting their time on such a task when the potential salary doesn't match what they could earn elsewhere? For those with exceptional abilities, time is money, and this essentially amounts to unpaid time wasted. These requirements are just out of touch with the reality.
- steveklabnik 3y ago
  It is true that not everyone is going to find the salary or process works for them, even if they are fantastic engineers. However, we have found that many people do find it compelling. Not everyone is purely looking at base salary as a reason to take a job. As mentioned elsewhere, I took a pay cut for this job, and am happy with my decision.
- sunshowers 3y ago
  My goal in life is not to make the greatest amount of money possible. Mission, vision, values, culture, peer group—these matter a lot to me as well. I also have been lucky to have enough saved, and can take risks for something I believe in. (I currently work at Oxide, having taken a pay cut.)
- 3y ago

jrmg 3y ago

To assess analytical ability, candidates should be asked to provide an analysis sample: a written analysis from the candidate. As with the work and writing sample, the specifics of the prompt will vary by domain: for engineers, this should be the analysis that the candidate performed of a system behaving pathologically; for sales, this might be the research the candidate performed of a prospect and their fit with the product before reaching out to them; for operations, this might be the examination of an existing process with an eye towards improvement; for product management, this might be the exploration of a new system or of a new aspect of the system. Regardless of domain, the sample should contain enough concrete detail to assess analytical ability, with the candidate asked to recall details to the best of their ability. Given the level of detail requested here, in writing, this feels like it’s requiring proprietary information from a previous job. I don’t think many people do “analysis [...] of a system behaving pathologically,” or “perform[] [analysis] of a [sales] prospect and their fit with the product before reaching out to them” on their own.

steveklabnik 3y ago
We do not solicit proprietary information. It is true that it is more difficult for a candidate who has done more private, or NDA'd, work than someone who has done a lot of open source work. But we understand if details need to be elided in order to be respectful of previous commitments. We have hired people in all of these various states before. > I don’t think many people do [snip] on their own. It is true that many people need to do new work as part of the application process. I wrote a large portion of my packet from scratch.
- Paul-Craft 3y ago
  > It is true that it is more difficult for a candidate who has done more private, or NDA'd, work than someone who has done a lot of open source work. I hope you realize as well that approximately everybody is the former sort of candidate.
  - steveklabnik 3y ago
    Most people are in the middle. They can discuss previous work on some level. Yes, most people’s jobs are not purely in open source. That doesn’t mean they can’t discuss previous work they’ve done. Every employer wants to hear about past accomplishments in some form.

jakebasile 3y ago

They say to expect 9 hours of interviews, on top of all this homework. All-in, this looks like it would take at minimum one full day of work just writing on top of at least one extra-full day of interviewing and that's not including time to research, think, and copyedit the written homework or generate work samples if they don't already exist. Later on it insinuates the candidate would be expected to read internal issues and documentation requiring yet more of the candidates time - all for free without even the promise of an offer yet. This is essentially the same as Canonical's well-known and ridiculed process, except this is from a hot startup so it might get a pass. I have nothing but the strongest distaste for LeetCode interviews but this is another flavor of absurd that still takes a huge time commitment from the interviewee which inherently discriminates against those already employed, those later in life, and those interviewing at more than one company. More evidence for my big binder of evidence that interviewing culture in our industry is entirely some grotesque form of hazing ritual that builds upon itself, with each company and team deciding that the specific form of pain that they had to go through is the ideal form to subject candidates to in order to justify the pain inflicted on them.

steveklabnik 3y ago
For what it's worth, I hear your concerns re: the kind of person that can apply, but in practice, my co-workers at Oxide are more "later in life" than in any other job I have previously worked at. I have personally regarded that as a positive.
- jakebasile 3y ago
  Appreciate the response, and I'm glad you have a team of experienced teammates. This industry struggles with ageism so it's nice to hear when that cycle is broken. As you can tell I take a dim view of most of our industry practices around hiring and it's one of those things that can rile me up. I think the vast majority of interview structures are heavily weighted toward favoring fresh grads (more time to dedicate to prep, fresher knowledge of the type of rote CS stuff that you learn in college but rarely used in industry, more willingness to put up with onerous interview requirements). I think it's likely because less experienced employees tend to be easier for companies to exploit, and so companies allow it to continue by feeding into my above-mentioned theory of hazing. Interview practices like we have impact people in negative ways small and large, yet I have seen no evidence that they produce better results than more humane methods. I hope that as Oxide grows and succeeds (and I do wish y'all the best!) that you're able to either streamline your interview process to be more accessible and/or offer alternate paths.

akaike 3y ago

American companies often seem to be out of touch with reality. Who would want to waste so much of their time on a process that ultimately benefits the company's CEO? This seems to be a good example of such a company. The hiring process in most German companies is much more humane and efficient

camdenlock 3y ago

… why does everything that comes out of this company smell scammy / cultish?

thraway3837 3y ago

1. Something about this thread is really bad taste: A user "steveklabnik" responds to many of the questions with point blank "if it sucks, you're welcome to not apply here" and other prescriptive/absolute type explanations to the concern rather than actually addressing it. Examples: "Multiple people review every single submission." " Any application process is a two-way street. It is absolutely fine for you to decide to opt to not apply. Maybe someday we'll have a different process, or maybe it was just never meant to be :)" I would advise Oxide that if SteveKlabnik is not in the PR field with experience in handling HR style topics such as this thread, then to have Steve refrain from doing so, because this isn't helping the community perception of Oxide. You're getting destroyed in the comments. https://steveklabnik.com/writing/today-is-my-first-day-at-oxide-computer-company https://steveklabnik.com/writing/today-is-my-first-day-at-ox... ("Steve Klabnik is the Community Team Leader for the Rust team at Mozilla") 2. Publishing the exact hiring process is a refreshing and welcome step in the industry where interviews are a black box. I also welcome the work that's been done to reduce as much bias as possible. However, this all begs the question: Do we really need this much evaluation in trying to hire an employee? I believe the pandemic and WFH has shown that people want to prioritize their personal and family lives more than "giving it all" to the workplace. The sense I get from reading the Oxide hiring process is one where you truly have to believe and be in love with the Oxide culture. Why? Why can't we just treat work as a means to an end, and that you can still good quality work with that style of thinking? It does not have to be an either/or, but the hiring process document makes it seem like it's "you either fit into our style and values, or you don't". Why the gatekeeping? 2a. The amount of hoops software engineering folks have to go through to land a job is just mostly made up stuff, based on no studies or research on workforce hiring, and at a startup, HR is just really payroll, with no formal processes on handling grievances, human process, etc. 2b. Having said 2 and 2a. Why do we, as an industry seem to mired in spending so much effort on weeding people out? What are we scared of? All of us have worked with people we don't like, or that we feel were not good enough (caliber, skillset, professionalism, etc.), but this and other process isn't helping. What if we changed our mindset to actually trusting and believing in people to do the best they can rather than send them so much homework, have them sit through panel interviews and then conclude with "hire, do not hire" and then provide the candidate absolutely no feedback on what went wrong. Why can't we seem to disrupt this. It's tiring, and it shows in this thread that people are quite honestly sick of it. 3. Personally, when I attend future interviews, I want to have a hard boundary for the type of questions that get asked. If I get thrown a "reverse this integer" style question or "lets do TDD on the white board", I think as a collective we need to walk out or stop the interviewer and put them on the spot and go "You really want to waste an hour of my time asking basic questions like this? Don't you want to know how to solve real problems that you're currently facing or are you not facing any challenging problems so you want play with puzzles and waste my time?" I would bet if the masses resisted and took this course, interviews would change drastically and quickly. EDIT: @Oxide, bcantrill isn't helping in the comment section either. This isn't going well for you and I strongly advise you to hire HR or PR to handle commentary and writing about these things rather than engineers/founders.

fleabitdev 3y ago

Sensitivity and specificity [0] seem relevant here. Every interview stage which is designed to reject bad candidates (true negatives) will also accidentally reject some good candidates (false negatives). The more eagerly you filter out bad candidates, the more you'll also filter out good candidates; sensitivity decreases as specificity increases. This means that building more pass/fail tests into your interview pipeline may produce worse results - even if you have an enormous number of applicants, all with infinite time and patience! At each interview stage, there's a risk of accidentally rejecting the best remaining applicant, the one who would have outperformed all others if they were hired. For example, the article mentions "values mismatch" as a particularly good reason to hard-reject a candidate, but several of the company's values seem like they ought to be optional. Surely some truly excellent software developers lack courage, humour, and thriftiness? Could those qualities just as well be taught on-the-job? Could a non-courageous hire have useful things to teach you about caution? Good hiring processes should draw a clear distinction between "must-have" qualities and "nice-to-have" qualities. Beyond a certain point, the problem stops being "filter out bad candidates", and starts being "out of several great candidates, make sure we choose the best one"; to solve those two problems, different tools are required. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_and_specificity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_and_specificity

jrozner 3y ago

I applied almost two years ago. I am excited about what Oxide is doing and it felt like a fun opportunity. While I respect what they do around comp, for where I was in my life and goals I had set, it was going to be rough. I applied anyway at the encouragement of a friend who worked there. I think the packet process is awful. So much unnecessary work and frankly by the end I just sort of phoned it in because I lost interest. It took about two months to hear back (I applied in December 2021 and heard back February 2022) and get rejected and got nothing more than a generic form rejection letter after all the time spent on preparing the packet. ——— We are so humbled by your application to join Oxide Computer Company. At this stage of the company we are hyper-focused on certain areas of the stack and when we need specific domain space experience such as yours, please engage with us. Our roles will be updated as we need them. We are grateful you took the time to apply and put so much thought into the candidate materials, we loved reading them. We would absolutely love to work with you in the future and cannot wait for that stage of the company! All the best, The Oxide Team

jsyang00 3y ago

Guess I'll know I've made it as an engineer when I could plausibly fill out this application...

camila45 3y ago

[flagged]

camila45 3y ago

[flagged]