|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:prospective tech employees tend to have ridiculous interview testing b/c the industry has no standards whatsoever I got confused for a second when I saw your avatar and praise for software engineer interviewing standards.
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 06:01 |
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Yes, exactly. If someone you're recruiting doesn't have some manner of portfolio of past work for you to review then you're filling an entry-level position and should get over yourself. Face-to-face interviews are about personality and gauging the candidate's interest in the company. Roughly 1/3rd of people in my role are Ph.Ds, and a shockingly high percentage of people I interview (despite graduating from top schools, having graduate degrees, working at other reasonably high-quality companies, etc), can't do basic probability/statistics, or simple data manipulation/transformation/analysis tasks in the interviews I do (you know, things I use several times in my line of work every single day). I don't care what their portfolio of past work is if their interviews go like this (and I'm sure their theses and graduate work have lots of very complex and impressive math that they don't actually understand that well). I'm talking things like not knowing the relationship between the density of a random variable and its expectation/variance, or not being able to spot the most obvious case of sampling bias ever constructed. This is the nature of Fizz buzz and other similar programming questions. WrenP-Complete posted:Fwiw, I've hired doctors, nurses, social workers and addiction counselors (so not all licensed professionals) with about 3 hours of total interview time. Perhaps this jobs are less technical but they involve a huge amount of trust because they have a duty of care. He's moving the goalposts. Most on-site tech interview processes are about that length. The ones that are longer are ones that have some off- or on-line component, like a timed automated test or a take-home assignment. But those are probably more friendly to candidates with less time flexibility. Tiny Brontosaurus posted:100 recruits or 1 recruiter, hmm... I thought you tech ubermenschen were supposed to be good at math? There also exist such things as overtime pay and a non M-F work schedule. You had me questioning whether I came by my math Ph.D legitimately with that jibe, but unless you've found some magical method by which a single interviewer can batch screen hundreds of recruits at once, this is a pretty uninteresting proposal. Also, people who are not looking for a M-F work schedule are generally not clamoring to work weekends (you know, the days all their friends and families also have off) in their place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Yeah, not unlike my industry and the vanity production companies that litter the landscape, with a small tech startup there's a decent chance the people managing the hiring process have never conducted interviews before and, depending on the daddy's money quotient, possibly never even interviewed for a job before. reminds me of when google hired eric schmidt to essentially be the adult in the room
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:He's moving the goalposts. Most on-site tech interview processes are about that length. The ones that are longer are ones that have some off- or on-line component, like a timed automated test or a take-home assignment. But those are probably more friendly to candidates with less time flexibility. blah_blah posted:You had me questioning whether I came by my math Ph.D legitimately with that jibe, but unless you've found some magical method by which a single interviewer can batch screen hundreds of recruits at once, this is a pretty uninteresting proposal. Also, people who are not looking for a M-F work schedule are generally not clamoring to work weekends (you know, the days all their friends and families also have off) in their place. Yes I have, you loving idiot. I've been talking about it for several pages now, even. You want to whine about moving goalposts, why are you suddenly talking about screening when I've been talking about interviewing? You don't need to have people on-site to screen them. And your bitching about hypothetical work schedules is so loving dumb I don't even know where to begin, please remove yourself from human society.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
So do you guys expect a candidate to be a complete master of their arena upon hiring with zero need for professional development and growth, effectively requiring someone to turn up and push tech buttons on the tech assembly line? I'd rather hire someone that shows interest whose skills will improve. Having professional or personal growth at work is important otherwise that employee will bail within a short amount of time to somewhere that pays better or offers an opportunity to expand their skillset.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
twodot posted:"Implement a red black tree" is "have you read the Wikipedia page for red black trees recently?" quote:"Reverse a linked list" and discuss the time and space implications of the strategy they chose is a thing anyone calling themselves a programmer should be able to do at will regardless of the last time you've done it. Also, I've seen a lot of companies giving out coding assessments that have relatively open-ended specs with the deliverable being a public Github repo. I'm all about this, even if I don't get the job at least it's something new for the portfolio. Soy Division fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Sep 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:They didn't wait for the Appeals Court to rule. They just did what they wanted, arguing free speech considerations over a stolen porn video of a wrestler. It's good they didn't comply with an unconstitutional order. The appeals judge agreed with them. quote:"Because the temporary injunction is an unconstitutional prior restraint under the First Amendment, we reverse." H.P. Hovercraft posted:he was one of the defendants I didn't realize that Gawker's lawyers were controlling what that dumbass said. Slanderer fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Sep 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:I'm a woman, dummy, and I'm not moving poo poo. If you haven't personally heard of the kind of day-camp interviews I'm talking about then bully for you, they're still bad. Sorry for the misgendering. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure I'm more in the loop about what typical onsite practices are in tech than you are. 5 30 min interviews is the de facto standard and has been for a long time. I'm sure you can find some startup that makes you do day-camp (I interviewed at one of them, a long time ago) but this isn't really representative. Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Yes I have, you loving idiot. I've been talking about it for several pages now, even. You want to whine about moving goalposts, why are you suddenly talking about screening when I've been talking about interviewing? You don't need to have people on-site to screen them. And your bitching about hypothetical work schedules is so loving dumb I don't even know where to begin, please remove yourself from human society. I meant interviewing, not screening -- my bad, though it's not like the two are essentially different in terms of time requirements. The point remains that just getting dozens of people in just creates a commensurate need for employees to work weekends, unless you have some proposal that allows you to interview them in parallel while getting the same signal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:In other words, it's trivia that a quality programmer doesn't need to reproduce on a whiteboard from memory, because in the event they would need to actually implement one they can pull up Wikipedia. A perfect example of this in my field: A hiring manager for a long-running television show was asking potential bookers to name three people they'd want to see on the show, and dinging recruits who named somebody who'd actually already been on, even if it was years before. Who is a better hire: Someone who memorized a list of every single person who ever guest-starred on your show, or someone who's got such a good eye for your needs they'd make the same casting decisions you did? Sloppy recruiting is biased towards questions that are easy to grade over questions that correlate with success. blah_blah posted:Sorry for the misgendering. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure I'm more in the loop about what typical onsite practices are in tech than you are. 5 30 min interviews is the de facto standard and has been for a long time. I'm sure you can find some startup that makes you do day-camp (I interviewed at one of them, a long time ago) but this isn't really representative. I remain so goddamn depressed that you have accepted awful, time-wasting, bloated interview processes as so immutably How It's Done that you can only get sarcastic and sneer about "magic" when someone says there are other options. Yes, denizen from the Dilbert Universe, you can recruit people in other ways. Really truly. There is a world beyond the gray flannel of your cube. Tiny Brontosaurus fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Sep 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:Sorry for the misgendering. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure I'm more in the loop about what typical onsite practices are in tech than you are. 5 30 min interviews is the de facto standard and has been for a long time. I'm sure you can find some startup that makes you do day-camp (I interviewed at one of them, a long time ago) but this isn't really representative. Scrappy little startups like google.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Would you mind going into some detail about this rather than beating around the bushes? Uber insists that the drivers who work for them are not employees, and insists that they are not due normal employees' rights, such as minimum wage and the 40-hour work week. In a number of places, drivers are suing Uber on the grounds that they are employees. There's an example in this thread several pages back. That particular post was in response to a goon saying that Uber drivers' relationship to Uber was equivalent to Costco's relationship to the cleaning staff employed by their cleaning company. I and quite a number of lawsuits are saying that Uber gets to determine the dress code, code of conduct, and various other conditions of the work of their drivers, including knowing their exact location at all times when they're on the clock. This is much closer to Costco's relationship their own staff than to those of a contractor. A lot of Uber's success has come from effectively flouting basic labour law.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:I didn't realize that Gawker's lawyers were controlling what that dumbass said. hahaha oh my yes, coaching your client is a p typical thing that's done before they give testimony in their defense
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Scrappy little startups like google. "You'll usually meet with four Googlers—some potential teammates and some cross-functional—for about 30 to 45 minutes each." I'll let you do the math on how that compares with 'about 3 hours of total interview time'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:"You'll usually meet with four Googlers—some potential teammates and some cross-functional—for about 30 to 45 minutes each." Four is too many and that's indicative of a broken company culture with poor communication and delegation skills. Google's problem (which it passes onto its imitators, big and small) is that it's so wrapped up in the fantasy of being a company staffed entirely by the specialest people in the universe that it wants to choose every mainline employee with the painstaking laboriousness a functional company would reserve for mission-critical roles. A candidate recruited by two people is not 50% the worker a candidate recruited by four is. It's just throwing hours of the day into a black hole because Google is a meeting-choked nightmare that doesn't value anyone's time, inside the company or out. Tiny Brontosaurus fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Sep 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
I've heard of full day job shadowing type interviews before, but in all of the cases I've personally encountered the company cuts the candidate a check. If they don't that's a sign to tell them to gently caress off. The average 5 interview deal is still basically a full day though, there are inevitable breaks and delays and the candidate needs to bring their A game the whole time including downtime, which you don't have to do during a normal day at work. Even if it's only 5-6 hours onsite it's much more exhausting than an average 8 hour workday. In one of my recent interviews I had to do 3 hours of whiteboard interviews with no breaks and I was loving exhausted at the end. Soy Division fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Sep 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Paid interviews are great, but if you have the power, advocate for interview sessions outside standard business hours. A Saturday recruiting session would open doors wide open for a lot of people you're completely missing out on right now. That's a really great idea and an excellent point. Thank you. E: aha, we do offer weekend interviews but nobody signs up to do them (because nobody likes to do them). I've signed up for weekend interviews, because this poo poo is important. Thanks for what you do, your work makes the world fairer. cowofwar posted:So do you guys expect a candidate to be a complete master of their arena upon hiring with zero need for professional development and growth, effectively requiring someone to turn up and push tech buttons on the tech assembly line? I've given feedback before that said "look, the candidate got the question wrong but she was nearly there, and she did X Y and Z good things that aren't really part of the question but are good anyway, it's totally reasonable to bring her on even though she didn't really get it right exactly, she'll improve". Sometimes that's listened to, sometimes not. I'm sure it introduces more unconscious bias into the hiring system, which is a lovely tradeoff to have to make. Gail Wynand posted:In other words, it's trivia that a quality programmer doesn't need to reproduce on a whiteboard from memory, because in the event they would need to actually implement one they can pull up Wikipedia. Totally! That's why I'd never ask "implement a red/black tree", but might ask "how would you ensure that the worst case search performance of a binary search tree didn't degrade to O(n) under repeated adversarial add/remove operations". Sometimes the candidate will come up with crazy bullshit combining three hash tables and a linked list of tree nodes, and very rarely, it actually works. It's good to ask about application, not about data structures. Someone who can design and build an insane hodgepodge solution in 45 minutes is just as worth hiring as someone who writes the Wikipedia pseudocode for red black trees three times before they go to sleep at night.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Their stupid hiring practices don't filter for the best at doing the job, they filter for the best at doing stupid hiring practices. That's why dumb riddles like "how many pennies could fit in this room" have largely fallen out of fashion with companies like Google, although they're still trickling down to smaller companies that are behind on the trends. Google's still a fan of the "devote several unpaid days to a gauntlet of interviews with us" thing though, which should be next on the chopping block. I had no idea stuff like this used to be in their interviews. This was a (small) part of the required physics curriculum at my school--the prof. gave it a particular name, but the takeaway was "back of the napkin math". Like, you should be quickly come up with a way of estimating the solution to some problem, even given wildly unrealistic guesses at the values of real world figures needed to solve it (like, using the geometric mean of your min/max guess of the volume of penny, along with all your other figures). Figuring out the answer wasn't the point (although it was considered "good" if you were within an order of magnitude), it was more about practicing quickly describing a problem mathematically and producing an educated guess. The equations produced aren't always terribly useful for more than a guess, because they often rely on figures that can't really be measured or determined---a good example of this is the Drake Equation, which includes constants like "the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space". This can obviously not be known by humans, so whatever number we use for it is gonna be bullshit (but we can at least aim for informed bullshit). Anyway it's stupid to ask on an interview about this kind of stuff. It does come in handy when you're arguing with your friend at the bar about the volume of poo poo produced by the entire human population (not that anyone would, uh, do that)
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:In other words, it's trivia that a quality programmer doesn't need to reproduce on a whiteboard from memory, because in the event they would need to actually implement one they can pull up Wikipedia. quote:Sure, any programmer should be able to explain and talk about the time and space complexity of common data structures and algorithms. This is different from expecting them to do implementations from memory in a high-pressure environment without computer assistance. Google and Google cargo-culting companies do that. By the way, no prizes for guessing which demographics tend to do worst in these types of interviews.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:hahaha oh my Yes, if they had coached him not to be a bitter gently caress, he wouldn't have said that. They clearly didn't coach him at all, because otherwise he would be physically unable to be a dumbass. Gosh you should be a lawyer, you're really good at this!
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:I had no idea stuff like this used to be in their interviews. This was a (small) part of the required physics curriculum at my school--the prof. gave it a particular name, but the takeaway was "back of the napkin math". Like, you should be quickly come up with a way of estimating the solution to some problem, even given wildly unrealistic guesses at the values of real world figures needed to solve it (like, using the geometric mean of your min/max guess of the volume of penny, along with all your other figures). Figuring out the answer wasn't the point (although it was considered "good" if you were within an order of magnitude), it was more about practicing quickly describing a problem mathematically and producing an educated guess. The equations produced aren't always terribly useful for more than a guess, because they often rely on figures that can't really be measured or determined---a good example of this is the Drake Equation, which includes constants like "the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space". This can obviously not be known by humans, so whatever number we use for it is gonna be bullshit (but we can at least aim for informed bullshit). Yeah, I can understand how it might have made its way into the company culture, because that kind of thing is theatrical and entertaining when done by someone charismatic - kind of a TED talk thing, or like XKCD's "What If?", which I really like. But unless you're hiring a TED Talk type presenter or a stick figure illustrator, being good at that doesn't correlate at all with whatever you're really looking for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:"You'll usually meet with four Googlers—some potential teammates and some cross-functional—for about 30 to 45 minutes each." I interviewed there last month and each of 5 interviewers had a one hour time slot plus one hour for lunch. Oh and everyone ran over too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
SolTerrasa posted:Totally! That's why I'd never ask "implement a red/black tree", but might ask "how would you ensure that the worst case search performance of a binary search tree didn't degrade to O(n) under repeated adversarial add/remove operations". Sometimes the candidate will come up with crazy bullshit combining three hash tables and a linked list of tree nodes, and very rarely, it actually works. It's good to ask about application, not about data structures. Someone who can design and build an insane hodgepodge solution in 45 minutes is just as worth hiring as someone who writes the Wikipedia pseudocode for red black trees three times before they go to sleep at night. Oh thank God. Thanks for writing that, it just made me a million times more confident. I've been hesitating to call the recruiter back because of lack of formal programming training.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
twodot posted:I think it's fine to argue that high-pressure environments are fundamentally flawed (possibly because you are reduced to asking trivial questions like reverse a linked list), but someone who can't reverse a linked list on demand isn't a programmer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Anyway it's stupid to ask on an interview about this kind of stuff. It does come in handy when you're arguing with your friend at the bar about the volume of poo poo produced by the entire human population (not that anyone would, uh, do that) Re-reading this made me finally realize what the fantasy is and why it's so compelling that nerds keep building it into their company frameworks to their detriment. It's the fantasy of the middle-out sequence in Silicon Valley - that being nerdy and riff-y with your friends means you're secretly a genius and inspiration is destined to strike. It's exactly like my field and the myth that being a TV-Tropes style encyclopedic pop culture grognard has any correlation to storytelling talent. If you can find the fantasy you've found the lie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Yes, if they had coached him not to be a bitter gently caress, he wouldn't have said that. They clearly didn't coach him at all, because otherwise he would be physically unable to be a dumbass. Gosh you should be a lawyer, you're really good at this! which is what we're mocking in the first place that you took issue with gosh you sound angry
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:I remain so goddamn depressed that you have accepted awful, time-wasting, bloated interview processes as so immutably How It's Done that you can only get sarcastic and sneer about "magic" when someone says there are other options. Yes, denizen from the Dilbert Universe, you can recruit people in other ways. Really truly. There is a world beyond the gray flannel of your cube. In turn, I find it depressing that you literally seem unable to conceive of the possibility that there may be a gap between someone's portfolio/resume and the skills they actually have, and I also find it pretty arrogant that you think that you are able to condense assessment of complex quantitative/technical topics into a few minutes (which is what you would have to do, if indeed it were possible to eliminate as many ineffciencies from the process as you seem to think exist). I guarantee you have no idea how frequent it is to get really bad candidates who also have really impressive resumes. I'm also fairly confident that many of these candidates would make it past the interview processes you propose to replace the existing ones. Slanderer posted:I had no idea stuff like this used to be in their interviews. This was a (small) part of the required physics curriculum at my school--the prof. gave it a particular name, but the takeaway was "back of the napkin math". These are called Fermi problems. I don't think they are great interview questions but IMO this back-of-the-envelope type math comes up a lot in what I do, and it's good to be able to estimate what the impact of your work will be. People who are particularly bad at this often spend a lot of time building out, and working on features that affect like 0.01% of our userbase.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:In turn, I find it depressing that you literally seem unable to conceive of the possibility that there may be a gap between someone's portfolio/resume and the skills they actually have, and I also find it pretty arrogant that you think that you are able to condense assessment of complex quantitative/technical topics into a few minutes (which is what you would have to do, if indeed it were possible to eliminate as many ineffciencies from the process as you seem to think exist).
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:In turn, I find it depressing that you literally seem unable to conceive of the possibility that there may be a gap between someone's portfolio/resume and the skills they actually have, and I also find it pretty arrogant that you think that you are able to condense assessment of complex quantitative/technical topics into a few minutes (which is what you would have to do, if indeed it were possible to eliminate as many ineffciencies from the process as you seem to think exist). how do these candidates have impressive resumes while simultaneously lacking critical professional knowledge that you would need to screen for via complex technical assessments?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:how do these candidates have impressive resumes while simultaneously lacking critical professional knowledge that you would need to screen for? He's either the exact kind of pedantic forest-for-the-trees idiot recruiter this thread has been talking about, or he's regularly getting fooled by people submitting the first hit on google for "Impressive Technical Smart Person Resume .pdf" If you're sitting down and interviewing total strangers for nuanced, complex roles you already done hosed up. When you're good at this you come to the candidates before they come to you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
Look folks, Steve Jobs once said that "A's hire A's, and B's hire C's." Thus we must make sure that every hire is an A player ubermensch by making them run our contrived interview gauntlet or our company will collapse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
The counterpoint is that there are many people who are walking encyclopedias in their field but can't apply worth poo poo. Both a knower and a figure-outer can have high quality resumes for different reasons.
cowofwar fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Sep 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:which is what we're mocking in the first place that you took issue with Gosh, sorry you got that impression! I assure you that is not the case. I understand that interpreting the emotions of others can be tricky and sometimes frustrating, but thankfully there resources available that you can use to help you better understand emotions in the future, H. P. Hovercraft. Allow me to help!  
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:Yeah, that's true, I was thinking of this infamous case and mangled it. It's also unclear to me that this person has good knowledge that that question was the reason they weren't hired. I assume if you wrote software 90% of Google uses, you are shooting for a pretty high up position with similarly high requirements.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:I literally do this for a living you smug douchebag. Maybe you're poo poo at recruiting because you're poo poo at human interaction. If you want actual specific solutions to your precious snowflake recruiting problems you can pay me for them. I mean, there's also lots of software engineers that do their jobs at a living and are bad at them as well. Nothing you've written here gives me any confidence that you aren't the analogous thing in your field. Have you also considered disrupting the educational system? Think of all those 3 hour, end-of-semester exams that could easily be replaced with an affidavit that the student indeed read their textbook or attended all of their classes. H.P. Hovercraft posted:how do these candidates have impressive resumes while simultaneously lacking critical professional knowledge that you would need to screen for via complex technical assessments? The archetype for candidates of this type is something like: Masters or Ph.D from [good to decent school] in [STEM field]. Worked as data scientist/analyst/engineer/SWE/whatever at [mid-tier company] or [startup I've never heard of]. Under that bullet, they say [implemented machine learning model in production], [raised company core metric by X%], [demonstrated x,y,z cross-functional skills]. Maybe they also took some Coursera courses or finished in the top x% on a Kaggle competition (both things where you can copy other people's code/assignments). Then they can barely write working SQL/Python and don't know the first thing about a linear regression or how to interpret/calibrate it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
"Min-max the tree" presumably means to write a heapify function? Or convert a min heap into a max heap?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
twodot posted:I assume if you wrote software 90% of Google uses, you are shooting for a pretty high up position with similarly high requirements. That's not a correct assumption.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:how do these candidates have impressive resumes while simultaneously lacking critical professional knowledge that you would need to screen for via complex technical assessments? nepotism
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:These are called Fermi problems. I don't think they are great interview questions but IMO this back-of-the-envelope type math comes up a lot in what I do, and it's good to be able to estimate what the impact of your work will be. People who are particularly bad at this often spend a lot of time building out, and working on features that affect like 0.01% of our userbase. Ah, thanks! And that's a good point---there are legitimate times when they come in handy in the real world.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:"Min-max the tree" presumably means to write a heapify function? Or convert a min heap into a max heap? edit: Tiny Brontosaurus posted:That's not a correct assumption. twodot fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Sep 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 06:01 |
|
|
In the last software company I worked for the CEO insisted on meeting every person who'd gotten through the first three interviews and aptitude test to "give his personal approval." That was pretty dumb the year where we increased headcount 100% from 150 people to 300 and the VP of HR told him to stop because his schedule was so jammed that it was weeks before he could meet good candidates and they'd get another job. He wore a Toronto Blue Jays cap every day, even for VC meetings and anyway that's my terrible recruiting story.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 23:01
|
|
