6 ms·

> He continued to ask more questions about numbers of bits. I couldn’t answer any of them without a lot of help. He didn’t ask me about my PhD work building a n

by harles 2y ago

> He continued to ask more questions about numbers of bits. I couldn’t answer any of them without a lot of help. He didn’t ask me about my PhD work building a new theory of natural language semantics. This strikes me as fairly petty “I didn’t answer wrong, you asked me the wrong questions!”. Honestly it’s the recruiting process working as intended - folks with this type of attitude don’t make good team members in my experience. Also > At the time “Don’t be evil” still meant something. Now it seems like their mantra is just “Be evil”. Seems really petty. It’s a shame because we could good big tech alternatives, but building something out of spite without much perspective is unlikely to create a good alternative.

actionfromafar 2y ago
Well we got Mono and eventually open source .NET from that, so it can work sometimes.
- danogentili 2y ago
  And you call that a success story? :D
  - actionfromafar 2y ago
    It's definitely one of those "be careful what you wish for" stories. :)
bowsamic 2y ago
Yeah I agree, it's not hard to see why he was rejected from his attitude here
- zer0zzz 2y ago
  Seriously; we could good big tech alternatives if more people in this field could communicate clearly.
- arandomusername 2y ago
  English is not everyone's native language.
  - zer0zzz 2y ago
    And these sorts of hazing rituals are how that changes.
NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
> This strikes me as fairly petty “I didn’t answer wrong, you asked me the wrong questions!”. Honestly it’s the recruiting process working as intended - folks with this type of attitude don’t make good team members in my experience. Imagine some weird employer where a narcissist has managed to capture the hiring process. They might well ask the wrong questions to torment, and in that case someone who became flustered could well say that to them without it being petty and without the hiring process working as intended. So no, I don't believe necessarily that someone with "that attitude" would always make poor team members. > Now it seems like their mantra is just “Be evil”. I know it's just empty rhetoric for most, when they use the word "evil"... but it's still amusing to me. How many times do you have to flippantly suggest that they're evil before you start to believe it literally, and what happens when you start to literally believe that? Is it possible to remain rational afterward?
- trod123 2y ago
  I'd disagree with your characterization that it is empty rhetoric. In fact, it is actually using the word and meaning correctly within a rational context. Most people today are not properly taught to correctly recognize evil. Often as a result of this, they become evil themselves when they falsely justify evil acts which are unjustifiable. There really isn't much ideology, or hyperbole to this. From a non-ideological perspective, Evil is any act that does not promote the long-term beneficial growth of self or others. This includes destructive acts regardless of intention or knowledge. The more destructive the act against long term growth, the more 'evil' it is. Evil people are people who have blinded themselves through repeated acts of self-violation such as false justification, where they no longer resist doing such acts. The only way to prevent them from continuing is to stop them, and you don't argue with evil because they don't see what they are doing as wrong. They have willfully blinded themselves, and once blinded they can't see again. This is the generally held rational view of evil. Most people today instead are taught to embrace Tolstoy's pacifism (without knowing it). Live and let live. Turn the other cheek. Its in a lot of places. The problem with evil, is that it spreads exponentially, and consumes all until nothing is left, it turns those which it consumes, and bends them to that destructive will. If you follow this Live and let live philosophy, Evil will grow faster than those who seek to survive, for themselves and their children, eventually it overflows and causes catastrophe. The type of people that embrace chaos and destruction, given sufficient technology or sufficient time will cause extinction, since they turn it on themselves when no one else is left. Illyin wrote a treatise back in the 1900s which appropriately covered this subject matter. While there were some aspects in his writings that were not generally agreed upon (or considered correct today), he very much captured the common definition of evil known at that time, which remained consistent up through WW2 into the 60s; before sentimental moralism and nihilism introduced in the indoctrination within the public education system started watering this down for future generations. It is such an attractive and alluring thought, that one cannot do evil unless they choose to knowingly and actively do evil, where opinions and beliefs cannot be evil (nihilism). Obviously, to anyone rational, this last line of thought is pure fallacy (by trivial contradiction), but also commonly used as a basis for false justification... Most people who believe they are good today, often are evil and they simply don't know it. They are products of their 'disadvantaged' environment. Destruction follows them around like bad karma in their interactions, but they are rarely touched by it themselves, they act like parasites promoting and inducing evil in all that they do. With the advance of society, these people have also found that systems are a very efficacious way to induce people into these acts as well (great acts of evil). As a system, any act that is contentious, or dubious can be split among several roles with only a select few knowing the actual outcomes in any reliable detail. In isolation the parts you may work on don't appear to be evil. This can happen to anyone just doing a job, if they don't have full visibility because a business is a system. To reiterate, to be an evil person, one simply must be willfully blind, and the actions performed must support destructive outcomes. You can't take elements in isolation and draw a conclusion about the outcome of a undisclosed system. A system is what it does.
euvin 2y ago
I think it should be fairly standard expectation to be asked relevant questions to your expertise and not trivia. The interview seemed like a really low-signal interrogation where the folks that pass such an intense "psychological game" don't necessarily correlate to required expertise on the job. I do agree that the spite aspect could have been reduced or removed. In fact, I couldn't really see the point the article makes: they had a bad interview, a 15 year gap, then they're building yet another search engine... to contest Google?
- derefr 2y ago
  But regularly solving problems outside of your expertise is a necessary job duty in pretty much any software job. (If I were conducting the interview, I might explicitly explain that I'm going to ask them a few questions with the goal of seeing how they perform when they reach the limits of their crystallized knowledge and have to problem-solve from first principles/common sense — but I would still do it.)
JohnMakin 2y ago
True, the hiring process working as intended - I don’t want to work for an employer that would waste my time having me solve irrelevant problems to placate some weirdly misplaced ego-driven attitude. Seems fairly gatekeepy, and I think it selects for a certain type of cult member, not necessarily “good team members.” In my interviews I now throw out these dumb google style questions, not to see how they think, but to see how they react to a silly question. The person I’d like to hire, when asked “how would you calculate how many ping pong balls fit in a 747?” they would answer “I wouldn’t.” Only one so far has given me an answer like that and has been delightful to work with.
- em-bee 2y ago
  ouch, that is pretty rough. i mean i am happy that you found someone to give you the right answer. but i'd expect that the majority don't dare to do that in an interview session. i hope you are not rejecting people just because they actually try to answer that question.
  - JohnMakin 2y ago
    no, I just want to see their reaction, but the “I wouldn’t” response strongly puts me into “hire.” To me it signals this isn’t a yes man or someone who’s going to waste man hours making something overly complex, which at my current small scale is incredibly valuable, I cannot afford to waste time. That may or not be correct but it often shows me how willing a candidate is to jump through hoops they think they need to to get a job. Maybe that was the original intent of these questions. I have absolutely no desire to see how someone thinks their way through a silly thought experiment. My interview process should already have shown me how they think.
    - em-bee 2y ago
      i totally agree with you. i am just trying to see it from the candidates perspective. these questions are so common that i don't think many would have any idea what you are really after. so in a sense it still feels like a trick question. so i wonder if there is any better way to test for this. when i was doing an internship once the boss asked me to take care of some task, and i said no, because i was going for my lunch break now. later that day i got berated by my supervisor for denying the bosses request. it was a pretty frustrating experience, but i was to young to defend myself. on the other hand, in china, where people are typically very subservient at work, i once hired a student, who, after about 3 months of working with me had the courage to argue a technical question with me and stand his ground defending his opinion. he had never worked for a foreigner before, and he certainly would never act like that with a chinese superior. when he started he barely even spoke english (he could read and write it though) so i felt pretty proud that he was able to make that change while working with me. the point of that story is that the initial response in an interview may not be an indicator of future behavior because the behavior can be changed by how i treat my subordinates, welcoming critical responses and encouraging different opinions.
snozolli 2y ago
Honestly it’s the recruiting process working as intended Sounds more like a bored sadist who's throwing away talent entertaining himself instead of focusing on finding suitable candidates. Reminds me of the stories about Steve Jobs 'joking' that people are fired when they were trapped in an elevator with him.
nimithryn 2y ago
On the one hand, yeah, this guy is to some degree complaining on the internet because he was rejected. It’s annoying: No one likes listening to complaining. On the other hand, a) this guy does have a point - it’s very very strange that you can have all sorts of interesting, highly relevant expertise and tech interviews don’t care at all, they just ask you generic stuff that has nothing to do with the job, b) he’s allowed to complain c) you’re complaining about him complaining. I see a sort of weird logic all the time (usually around interviews or dating) where someone is complaining on the internet about how the system is broken and they are subsequently accused of some moral failing (being “petty”). I don’t think you know anything about this guys attitude or how this guy works on a team - you don’t know him! I guess the lesson is “don’t complain on the internet”, which I suppose I agree with. I guess I’m complaining about people complaining about complaining, so I’m part of the problem, too. But seriously, let’s engage with each other in good faith and not just assume someone’s a bad person because they’ve been hurt by rejection. Edit: grammar
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
mariusor 2y ago
> folks with this type of attitude don’t make good team members in my experience. Comparing this line here with what TFA is saying, the lack of empathy is astounding.

by harles 2y ago

actionfromafar 2y ago

Well we got Mono and eventually open source .NET from that, so it can work sometimes.

danogentili 2y ago
And you call that a success story? :D
- actionfromafar 2y ago
  It's definitely one of those "be careful what you wish for" stories. :)

bowsamic 2y ago

Yeah I agree, it's not hard to see why he was rejected from his attitude here

zer0zzz 2y ago
Seriously; we could good big tech alternatives if more people in this field could communicate clearly.
arandomusername 2y ago
English is not everyone's native language.
- zer0zzz 2y ago
  And these sorts of hazing rituals are how that changes.

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago

> This strikes me as fairly petty “I didn’t answer wrong, you asked me the wrong questions!”. Honestly it’s the recruiting process working as intended - folks with this type of attitude don’t make good team members in my experience. Imagine some weird employer where a narcissist has managed to capture the hiring process. They might well ask the wrong questions to torment, and in that case someone who became flustered could well say that to them without it being petty and without the hiring process working as intended. So no, I don't believe necessarily that someone with "that attitude" would always make poor team members. > Now it seems like their mantra is just “Be evil”. I know it's just empty rhetoric for most, when they use the word "evil"... but it's still amusing to me. How many times do you have to flippantly suggest that they're evil before you start to believe it literally, and what happens when you start to literally believe that? Is it possible to remain rational afterward?

trod123 2y ago
I'd disagree with your characterization that it is empty rhetoric. In fact, it is actually using the word and meaning correctly within a rational context. Most people today are not properly taught to correctly recognize evil. Often as a result of this, they become evil themselves when they falsely justify evil acts which are unjustifiable. There really isn't much ideology, or hyperbole to this. From a non-ideological perspective, Evil is any act that does not promote the long-term beneficial growth of self or others. This includes destructive acts regardless of intention or knowledge. The more destructive the act against long term growth, the more 'evil' it is. Evil people are people who have blinded themselves through repeated acts of self-violation such as false justification, where they no longer resist doing such acts. The only way to prevent them from continuing is to stop them, and you don't argue with evil because they don't see what they are doing as wrong. They have willfully blinded themselves, and once blinded they can't see again. This is the generally held rational view of evil. Most people today instead are taught to embrace Tolstoy's pacifism (without knowing it). Live and let live. Turn the other cheek. Its in a lot of places. The problem with evil, is that it spreads exponentially, and consumes all until nothing is left, it turns those which it consumes, and bends them to that destructive will. If you follow this Live and let live philosophy, Evil will grow faster than those who seek to survive, for themselves and their children, eventually it overflows and causes catastrophe. The type of people that embrace chaos and destruction, given sufficient technology or sufficient time will cause extinction, since they turn it on themselves when no one else is left. Illyin wrote a treatise back in the 1900s which appropriately covered this subject matter. While there were some aspects in his writings that were not generally agreed upon (or considered correct today), he very much captured the common definition of evil known at that time, which remained consistent up through WW2 into the 60s; before sentimental moralism and nihilism introduced in the indoctrination within the public education system started watering this down for future generations. It is such an attractive and alluring thought, that one cannot do evil unless they choose to knowingly and actively do evil, where opinions and beliefs cannot be evil (nihilism). Obviously, to anyone rational, this last line of thought is pure fallacy (by trivial contradiction), but also commonly used as a basis for false justification... Most people who believe they are good today, often are evil and they simply don't know it. They are products of their 'disadvantaged' environment. Destruction follows them around like bad karma in their interactions, but they are rarely touched by it themselves, they act like parasites promoting and inducing evil in all that they do. With the advance of society, these people have also found that systems are a very efficacious way to induce people into these acts as well (great acts of evil). As a system, any act that is contentious, or dubious can be split among several roles with only a select few knowing the actual outcomes in any reliable detail. In isolation the parts you may work on don't appear to be evil. This can happen to anyone just doing a job, if they don't have full visibility because a business is a system. To reiterate, to be an evil person, one simply must be willfully blind, and the actions performed must support destructive outcomes. You can't take elements in isolation and draw a conclusion about the outcome of a undisclosed system. A system is what it does.

euvin 2y ago

I think it should be fairly standard expectation to be asked relevant questions to your expertise and not trivia. The interview seemed like a really low-signal interrogation where the folks that pass such an intense "psychological game" don't necessarily correlate to required expertise on the job. I do agree that the spite aspect could have been reduced or removed. In fact, I couldn't really see the point the article makes: they had a bad interview, a 15 year gap, then they're building yet another search engine... to contest Google?

derefr 2y ago
But regularly solving problems outside of your expertise is a necessary job duty in pretty much any software job. (If I were conducting the interview, I might explicitly explain that I'm going to ask them a few questions with the goal of seeing how they perform when they reach the limits of their crystallized knowledge and have to problem-solve from first principles/common sense — but I would still do it.)

JohnMakin 2y ago

True, the hiring process working as intended - I don’t want to work for an employer that would waste my time having me solve irrelevant problems to placate some weirdly misplaced ego-driven attitude. Seems fairly gatekeepy, and I think it selects for a certain type of cult member, not necessarily “good team members.” In my interviews I now throw out these dumb google style questions, not to see how they think, but to see how they react to a silly question. The person I’d like to hire, when asked “how would you calculate how many ping pong balls fit in a 747?” they would answer “I wouldn’t.” Only one so far has given me an answer like that and has been delightful to work with.

em-bee 2y ago
ouch, that is pretty rough. i mean i am happy that you found someone to give you the right answer. but i'd expect that the majority don't dare to do that in an interview session. i hope you are not rejecting people just because they actually try to answer that question.
- JohnMakin 2y ago
  no, I just want to see their reaction, but the “I wouldn’t” response strongly puts me into “hire.” To me it signals this isn’t a yes man or someone who’s going to waste man hours making something overly complex, which at my current small scale is incredibly valuable, I cannot afford to waste time. That may or not be correct but it often shows me how willing a candidate is to jump through hoops they think they need to to get a job. Maybe that was the original intent of these questions. I have absolutely no desire to see how someone thinks their way through a silly thought experiment. My interview process should already have shown me how they think.
  - em-bee 2y ago
    i totally agree with you. i am just trying to see it from the candidates perspective. these questions are so common that i don't think many would have any idea what you are really after. so in a sense it still feels like a trick question. so i wonder if there is any better way to test for this. when i was doing an internship once the boss asked me to take care of some task, and i said no, because i was going for my lunch break now. later that day i got berated by my supervisor for denying the bosses request. it was a pretty frustrating experience, but i was to young to defend myself. on the other hand, in china, where people are typically very subservient at work, i once hired a student, who, after about 3 months of working with me had the courage to argue a technical question with me and stand his ground defending his opinion. he had never worked for a foreigner before, and he certainly would never act like that with a chinese superior. when he started he barely even spoke english (he could read and write it though) so i felt pretty proud that he was able to make that change while working with me. the point of that story is that the initial response in an interview may not be an indicator of future behavior because the behavior can be changed by how i treat my subordinates, welcoming critical responses and encouraging different opinions.

snozolli 2y ago

Honestly it’s the recruiting process working as intended Sounds more like a bored sadist who's throwing away talent entertaining himself instead of focusing on finding suitable candidates. Reminds me of the stories about Steve Jobs 'joking' that people are fired when they were trapped in an elevator with him.

nimithryn 2y ago

On the one hand, yeah, this guy is to some degree complaining on the internet because he was rejected. It’s annoying: No one likes listening to complaining. On the other hand, a) this guy does have a point - it’s very very strange that you can have all sorts of interesting, highly relevant expertise and tech interviews don’t care at all, they just ask you generic stuff that has nothing to do with the job, b) he’s allowed to complain c) you’re complaining about him complaining. I see a sort of weird logic all the time (usually around interviews or dating) where someone is complaining on the internet about how the system is broken and they are subsequently accused of some moral failing (being “petty”). I don’t think you know anything about this guys attitude or how this guy works on a team - you don’t know him! I guess the lesson is “don’t complain on the internet”, which I suppose I agree with. I guess I’m complaining about people complaining about complaining, so I’m part of the problem, too. But seriously, let’s engage with each other in good faith and not just assume someone’s a bad person because they’ve been hurt by rejection. Edit: grammar

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

mariusor 2y ago

> folks with this type of attitude don’t make good team members in my experience. Comparing this line here with what TFA is saying, the lack of empathy is astounding.