|
Good Will Hrunting posted:He also sounded like he hated his job. The vast majority of Googlers hate interviewing.
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 07:51 |
|
|
b0lt posted:The vast majority of Googlers hate interviewing. Well, I work in advertising on a bidding platform and he asked me questions about it. Then he talked about how he works on an ad server and just sounded like he couldn't be any less interested in what he did? Just my two cents, I'd probably hate interviewing too. That said I couldn't be any more unsure of whether I'll get to the next round.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
b0lt posted:The vast majority of Googlers hate interviewing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Good Will Hrunting posted:Well, I work in advertising on a bidding platform and he asked me questions about it. Then he talked about how he works on an ad server and just sounded like he couldn't be any less interested in what he did? Just my two cents, I'd probably hate interviewing too. I mean, do you ever have a series of interviews and by the last one you are not at all paying attention to your own explanation of your current job and are sick of talking about it? I feel like some of that might be going on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
RICHUNCLEPENNYBAGS posted:I mean, do you ever have a series of interviews and by the last one you are not at all paying attention to your own explanation of your current job and are sick of talking about it? I feel like some of that might be going on. I get this a lot... We interview a lot of students for intern positions, and after doing an entire day of them, you've described your basic technology stack and what you do so many times, yeah, it almost starts to feel like you're leaving your body and just watching someone else talk...
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
It was 10 am.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
Good Will Hrunting posted:It was 10 am. Maybe your interviewer hadn't had their coffee yet, then, and resented being made to wake up so early in the day. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
Good Will Hrunting posted:It was 10 am. Sounds like you did ok and already have a nascent imposter syndrome, so there's a good chance you're on track.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
I disagree with all these nice folks, if you're so much of a downer that you're able to bring down a peppy interviewin' Googler over a phone call and suck the joy out of their self-description you should do the recruiter a favor and withdraw yourself from consideration.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
mrmcd posted:Sounds like you did ok and already have a nascent imposter syndrome, so there's a good chance you're on track. The recruiter emailed me and said they'd like to schedule my "follow-up phone interview". Yesterday my interviewer asked if this was my first phone screen and I said I didn't know there was more than one and he said that sometimes they schedule two? The recruiter said "one or two" when I first talked to her. But I'm guessing the first guy was on the fence about me or something so they'll do a second before they decide whether or not they'd like to bring me in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 13:42
|
|
|
Good Will Hrunting posted:The recruiter emailed me and said they'd like to schedule my "follow-up phone interview". Yesterday my interviewer asked if this was my first phone screen and I said I didn't know there was more than one and he said that sometimes they schedule two? The recruiter said "one or two" when I first talked to her. But I'm guessing the first guy was on the fence about me or something so they'll do a second before they decide whether or not they'd like to bring me in. I really love doing interviews, esp phone screens cause I actually really enjoy talking about what I do and generally don't work places I don't like a lot, plus gives a break from staring at a computer all day. That said 90% of my feedbacks that asked for a follow up phone screen were cause they booked the thing at 10am and I wasn't awake enough to give a drat or remember enough to get good signal. I imagine a lot of people are similar. So don't let it get you down that they asked for a second.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
Love walking away from interviews where you get the best solution possible, but it's still a O(n^2) solution so you're questioning it and freaking out that you can do better, babbling on about parallelizing it and poo poo, and your interviewer does literally nothing to make you feel better as you sound like an idiot. And then you just question how you did.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
Good Will Hrunting posted:Love walking away from interviews where you get the best solution possible, but it's still a O(n^2) solution so you're questioning it and freaking out that you can do better, babbling on about parallelizing it and poo poo, and your interviewer does literally nothing to make you feel better as you sound like an idiot. And then you just question how you did. What if you used a quantum computer with a positronic matrix?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:I disagree with all these nice folks, if you're so much of a downer that you're able to bring down a peppy interviewin' Googler over a phone call and suck the joy out of their self-description you should do the recruiter a favor and withdraw yourself from consideration. haha i like this take on it
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Had my own Google onsite awhile back, and today got informed that they're moving ahead to the next set of screens (where the hiring managers look over everyones' resumes to see what they have to work with).  And I thought I completely bombed the fifth interview problem, too. Just goes to show, getting the right answer (or any answer, for that matter) is not the point of the interview. They tell you that, over and over again, but drat if it still doesn't feel bad to walk away from an unsolved problem!
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Had my own Google onsite awhile back, and today got informed that they're moving ahead to the next set of screens (where the hiring managers look over everyones' resumes to see what they have to work with).  Congrats! I just set up my second phone screen for next week. All weekend will be spend with recursion, DP, and trees.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Had my own Google onsite awhile back, and today got informed that they're moving ahead to the next set of screens (where the hiring managers look over everyones' resumes to see what they have to work with). Hey, you're in! See you in Mountain View?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
google-earth-with-only-california.png
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
Paolomania posted:google-earth-with-only-california.png US-NYC-9TH office best office.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
mrmcd posted:US-NYC-9TH office best office. I've never been to mountain view and inshallah i never will
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
Illusive gently caress Man posted:I've never been to mountain view and inshallah i never will 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
Paolomania posted:google-earth-with-only-california.png there are way too many goonglers in here mrmcd posted:US-NYC-9TH office best office. nope, US-MTV-43 #1, we have the best cafe and the worst cafe
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
Assuming I do get in, it'd be in MV to start, but I'm hoping to get the South SF location later, since it'd be a vastly shorter commute. Highway 101 is no fun. And it's not like I need access to 6+ cafeterias full of amazing free food, right? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
b0lt posted:there are way too many goonglers in here Yoshkas sucks but at least we don't get the tours going through and raiding our kitchen anymore.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Assuming I do get in, it'd be in MV to start, but I'm hoping to get the South SF location later, since it'd be a vastly shorter commute. Highway 101 is no fun. And it's not like I need access to 6+ cafeterias full of amazing free food, right? From what I hear they already have to shoo away the MTV campers in SFO on Fridays like so many persistent homeless, because nobody wants to deal with bay area traffic on a Friday and everyone wants to start their weekend in the city. Basically unless you can find a team that's already there with open headcount to take you, don't assume you're the first person to think "Man it'd be way nicer to work out of SF instead of dealing with the traffic disaster that is the bay area, I'll just get a desk here." I am in the Cambridge/Boston office this week it's very nice. They are so proud of their toy subway system here it's adorable. Every area is styled like the train system or Boston history trivia.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
Also I still have too still have to find time to pilgrimage to MTV mothership. Everyone on my team there, though, says NYC has much, much better food.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
mrmcd posted:I am in the Cambridge/Boston office this week it's very nice. They are so proud of their toy subway system here it's adorable. Every area is styled like the train system or Boston history trivia.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
apseudonym posted:Yoshkas sucks but at least we don't get the tours going through and raiding our kitchen anymore. at least the interns are gone, so it's not a choice between "wait 45 minutes for food" and "overcooked chicken and empty clamshells"
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 10:23
|
|
|
mrmcd posted:From what I hear they already have to shoo away the MTV campers in SFO on Fridays like so many persistent homeless, because nobody wants to deal with bay area traffic on a Friday and everyone wants to start their weekend in the city. Basically unless you can find a team that's already there with open headcount to take you, don't assume you're the first person to think "Man it'd be way nicer to work out of SF instead of dealing with the traffic disaster that is the bay area, I'll just get a desk here." Did they do the whole "FIRST subway in the United States of America!  " thing?Seems more interesting than my building's decor with abstract canvas that looks expensive but probably wasn't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 12:41
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Assuming I do get in, it'd be in MV to start, but I'm hoping to get the South SF location later, since it'd be a vastly shorter commute. Highway 101 is no fun. And it's not like I need access to 6+ cafeterias full of amazing free food, right? You're going to be really really disappointed if you think there are 6+ cafeterias with amazing food in MTV.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
asur posted:You're going to be really really disappointed if you think there are 6+ cafeterias with amazing food in MTV. ITT Googlers complain about their free food. Masa is best btw.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
Well, I had my second Amazon interview, and I think that went to hell. The first question was: Given an array of numbers, return an array that is the product at i of the array, excluding i. Do it in linear time without using division. I couldn't get there. I tried various lookups and the like and still couldn't hit what they wanted. I looked it up online afterwards. It's simple enough but I don't know how something like that would occur to me unless I was fresh out of school, majoring in CS, and had done a bunch of brain bender courses. That's not the kind of poo poo I deal with anywhere. The second question was: Given a string, return the first character in the string that occurs only once. I murdered that one in five minutes, of which I was mostly just typing it out. It's just a lookup table mapping character to count and its most recent index. Then you just filter through the ones that have only a single count and take the one with the lowest index. There's some semantics for empty strings and crap, but that wasn't a concern. I feel like if I want to get into these big places at all that I have to just practice mind bender bullshit stuff for a few months. Nothing else. It's really annoying how much programming interviews any more seem to just focus on Big-O complexity cleverness. Maybe I'm a lost cause, but between the programming I did as a kid, the programming I did in school, and the programming I've done professionally, that kind of stuff has been extremely rare. I mean, to the point where it's not even worth worrying about it, and just refreshing when a particular situation comes up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:Well, I had my second Amazon interview, and I think that went to hell. Was this phone/skype, or face to face?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:Well, I had my second Amazon interview, and I think that went to hell. I'm not sure I understand the problem statement. Am I to turn e.g. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] into [1, 1, 2, 6, 24, 120]? That should basically be foldr of multiplication, right? quote:I feel like if I want to get into these big places at all that I have to just practice mind bender bullshit stuff for a few months. Nothing else. It's really annoying how much programming interviews any more seem to just focus on Big-O complexity cleverness. Maybe I'm a lost cause, but between the programming I did as a kid, the programming I did in school, and the programming I've done professionally, that kind of stuff has been extremely rare. I mean, to the point where it's not even worth worrying about it, and just refreshing when a particular situation comes up. I'd love to see more general design problems in interviews, where you're handed a large problem like "how would you implement a relational database" or "how would you ensure that this message gets perfectly delivered despite an imperfect network" and the interviewer wants to see how you come up with designs, identify shortcomings/limitations/incompletely-specified problems, etc. But I think honestly a good "programming question" of the type you got (i.e. small-scale) still hits most of the high points. You have to correctly specify the problem statement, identify at least one potential path to a solution, justify your choices in data structures (which includes knowing why e.g. a linked list is superior to an array in this specific instance), recognize edge cases, and ideally explain how you would go about testing and verifying that your proposed solution is correct. All that stuff is pretty invariant to big-O or the scope of the problem, and it's what I think most interviewers are really looking for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Input : [3, 4, 7, 1] [0, 3, 12, 84] [28, 7, 1, 0] That's the solution to the first one, you don't have to keep 2 arrays though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
apseudonym posted:ITT Googlers complain about their free food. Masa is best when they have fish, Backyard on fridays, Happyfish when it's close, and Heritage otherwise. edit: oh and wan when it has fried chicken (i.e. today) b0lt fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Sep 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
mrmcd posted:US-NYC-9TH office best office. the 9TH best office, got it TooMuchAbstraction posted:I'm not sure I understand the problem statement. Am I to turn e.g. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] into [1, 1, 2, 6, 24, 120]? That should basically be foldr of multiplication, right? No it's a product of everything in the array except the number, not just from the left to that number
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
First problem the way you worded it seems like this is what they want (basically a modified foldr as mentioned above): In: A = {1, 2, 3} Out: {A[1] * A[2], A[0] * A[2], A[0] * A[1]} => { 2 * 3, 1 * 3, 1 * 2} => {6, 3, 2} In any case, to start looking at the problem without division you'd be looking at a solution that computes the product sweeping forward (foldr) into a new array and the product sweeping backwards (foldl) into another array to let you get O(1) operations at each array index. So at index i, you're looking at RArray[i-1] * LArray[i+1] to compute the value with 0th value being LArray[0] and the last value being RArray[length]. Or something like that. Too hungry and braindead to figure out how to put that into just one array (probably to do with redundancy / symmetry given the whole commutative property of multiplication) without overwriting the input or return output arrays. TooMuchAbstraction posted:I'd love to see more general design problems in interviews, where you're handed a large problem like "how would you implement a relational database" or "how would you ensure that this message gets perfectly delivered despite an imperfect network" and the interviewer wants to see how you come up with designs, identify shortcomings/limitations/incompletely-specified problems, etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
return0 posted:Was this phone/skype, or face to face? It was phone with an online collaboration link. We were able to talk to each other and type into a shared text box. Good Will Hrunting posted:Input : [3, 4, 7, 1] I'm not sure what you all are getting at: Given your input set of [3, 4, 7, 1], the output they wanted would be [28, 21, 12, 84] I kinda-sorta see that in what you have, but I don't see how you're getting there--with the zeroes in particular. necrobobsledder posted:First problem the way you worded it seems like this is what they want (basically a modified foldr as mentioned above): For people following along, there's a Stack Overflow about the literal question I had: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2680548/given-an-array-of-numbers-return-array-of-products-of-all-other-numbers-no-div You have to keep them from using division because otherwise you'd just get the product of all elements together, then divide by the element at each index to get each individual element's result. It looks like the trick for a 4-element array is to multiply down. I think this is what the interviewer wanted to see: code:
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 07:51 |
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:It was phone with an online collaboration link. We were able to talk to each other and type into a shared text box. The 0s in those arrays should be 1 but it's otherwise correct, then you just do a quick merge to get the result.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 20:30
|
|