Comment by nice_byte
Comment by nice_byte 11 hours ago
I find it hilarious when people brag about stupid shit like that. Congrats on sabotaging your own interview process I guess??
Comment by nice_byte 11 hours ago
I find it hilarious when people brag about stupid shit like that. Congrats on sabotaging your own interview process I guess??
I feel like I'm entering a whole different universe on HN. Maybe things are this equal and fair on the senior, high-paying part of the spectrum that most people here seem to occupy, but in general there's a huge power imbalance in job interviews. Unless you're special and the company wants you in particular, it costs them nothing to turn you down in favor of the other 10000 perfect applicants, while you must find a job to survive.
As someone just starting out, the general feeling among my peers is that I must bend to the interviewer's whims, any resistance or pushback will get you rejected. If this is dodging a bullet, then the entire junior field is a WW1 trench, at least where I am. Why would a company hire someone who gets 9/10 on the behavioral portion when they have a dozen other 10/10 candidates? Of course when the interviewer asks me to use "any language", I'll assume they want Python or Java or C++ or Rust, not Bash or ALGOL 68. Stepping out of line would just be performatively asking them to reject me.
I agree that doing that without asking if they really mean "any" would in fact demonstrate traits that might be bad for a co-worker.
If the candidate reads that this may be the case, asks for, obviously, that reason, and the interviewer confirms that they mean "any", then it's a red flag for that interviewer, at least, as a co-worker, if they go on to get upset over your choice, unless it's something where you're obviously taking the piss, like Brainfuck (the later suggestion of assembly probably counts as this, but at that point the interviewer[s] had already failed the interviewee's test of them, so, whatever)
But yes, if you're desperate for a job you should indeed just ignore any red flags and do your best to fit the perfect-cog mold and do whatever emotional labor is required to seem the way you think they want you to be, and take whatever abuse they offer with a smile. That's true.
Yeah, I don't mean to justify the actions of the interviewer, they were likely in the wrong here. It's just that, to someone in my position, it seems almost funny to be willing to throw the entire interview over something like that. It's them who gets to decide your fate.
Also, we can't know what exactly was said, so maybe miscommunication could be partly to blame. Like, "Are you sure I can use any language? (Are you really so gracious as to give me this option?)" vs. "Are you sure I can use any language? (Can I use something you definitely don't know?)"
> Of course when the interviewer asks me to use "any language", I'll assume they want Python or Java or C++ or Rust, not Bash or ALGOL 68.
When I did interviews, I used to ask for “any imperative language”. Most people chose C or Java, some chose e.g. Python and the best solutions looked very different from the C/Java ones. I did not deduct points for either; a good solution is a good solution.
I once had a candidate that chose Oberon, because it was the only language they felt comfortable with (by their own account). They fell through on the interview for other reasons, but this seriously made me consider to what degree they had any programming experience at all outside a few select school assignments.
Independent of that, if someone came with a solution in a constraint solver, my next question would be (as it usually was, regardless of approach) “and what is the runtime complexity of your solution?” and I'd be impressed if they had any nonobvious thoughts about that!
> the general feeling among my peers is that I must bend to the interviewer's whims
This is just conflict avoidance and naivety. After a while you start to realize that there's a whole world of people just like on HN and *we hire people too*. No matter what you do, youll end up in the place you deserve. If you try to be sneaky, you will end up working for people who are either easily fooled or see right through how to exploit you. If you let your nerd shine you'll end up with people who love your nerdiness.
> After a while you start to realize that there's a whole world of people just like on HN and we hire people too. No matter what you do, youll end up in the place you deserve.
I mean, I'm hoping for that too. But it also feels like this only applies as long as there's a balance of likeminded people who are already in the industry vs. the people looking to get a job. For someone like me, without a real network, meeting a person like the kind you mention is extremely unlikely. Even then, most of these people are looking for more qualified candidates, since there's an overabundance of juniors and seniority is a good predictor for being really passionate about their field. So, maybe I'll figure that out someday, but right now I just need a job, and what people in my cohort do is a way to try and get a job at all costs.
> As someone just starting out, the general feeling among my peers is that I must bend to the interviewer's whims, any resistance or pushback will get you rejected.
But interviews are bidirectional. The company is deciding if they want me, and I’m deciding if I want them. If I chose to use Self or Forth as the whiteboard context for the conversation we’re having, it’s deliberately to make the interviewer think, and hopefully learn. If the experience of thinking differently about a problem (that they chose!) and learning something new is a negative signal to them, that’s fine —- it being a negative signal to them is a negative signal to me, and I don’t want to be there anyway! If they’re excited, and intrigued, and give “12 o’clock” feedback — well, that’s the team I want to work with. So I’ve helped us both accomplish our goals (making accurate assessments about fit), and aligned our metrics along the way.
When I say "any language" when interviewing candidates, I mean it. I would be stoked if someone busted out J in an interview.
Of course, my team also writes SDKs in a bunch of different languages, so it makes sense. Even if that weren't the case though, I'd be stoked. To your point though, early in your career, I get your viewpoint. It's hard out there to get a foot in the door and you have to seize opportunities.
> Unless you're special and the company wants you in particular, it costs them nothing to turn you down in favor of the other 10000 perfect applicants, while you must find a job to survive.
This is not what you see in practice. Trying to hire, the view is very much different, in my experience. Every candidate has strengths and flaws, it's much more of a... constraint problem!
The idea that there even exists a perfect candidate is one of the biggest issues with hiring practices in tech these days.
I, for one, would be extremely impressed by a candidate breaking out J or Prolog for a constraint problem. But I'm also not a typical hiring manager for sure.
That is what people miss about interviews. Often when you interview you don't have reasonable leads on any other job and so you don't feel like there is a choice since you likely need a job (unemployment rarely pays as well as a job). However interviews are not only about the company deciding if they will hire you, they are also about do you want to work there and convincing you to take the job if one is offered.
So make sure you use those "do you have any questions" time to ask questions! What is it really like to work there. How much notice do you need to give before taking vacation? Do they really give pay raises? How often do they lay people off? What is the dress code? Do they let you take time for your kids school activities? And so on - these questions should be things that are important to you - find out.
In the best cases the interview is only about convincing you to take the offer - generally because someone who you worked with at a previous job said "hire this person" and they trust that person enough to not need any other interview. So keep your network open.
People don't miss that about interviews, they just know that the balance of power is so skewed that the interests of the employer become the only relevant part. The employer can keep going through hundreds of applicants until they find someone who's literally perfect in every single way, they have nearly unlimited time. Meanwhile, the applicants need a job now, any job at all, they're on a hard time limit until their money runs out.
I feel like in practice, unless you're an established, senior professional in a high-paying, in-demand field with a network to rely on, this would go something like:
> What is it really like to work there. How much notice do you need to give before taking vacation? Do they really give pay raises? How often do they lay people off? What is the dress code? Do they let you take time for your kids school activities?
"Candidate ABC seems too demanding and picky, constantly inquiring about irrelevant specifics. They would be a bad fit for our company culture. I advise going with candidate XYZ instead."
Maybe in some companies. Every interviewer I've talked to has never considered those a negative. Most don't even think of them at all once the interview is over. Of course I've always worked in companies where people work their 8 hours and go home to their family and so you would be a good fit (depending on what you asked).
I know applicants need the job more than they need you. However you still have options if you don't get this one - you should always be following several leads until you finally get a job. Odds are your other leads are not anywhere close to as advanced as this, but if you can wait a couple more months you have a chance.
Unless you are really desperate to find a job, there are definitely workplaces you would want to avoid. While a power imbalance does in principle exist, that doesn’t mean you usually have no choice at all. Of course that is less of a case when you just start, but in general pp can go around doing interviews and negotiating positions rather than just accept the first offer.
I have to push back on the unlimited amount of time thing. Maybe in FAANG that’s true but in the places I’ve worked for, hiring is something that comes down from on high - someone tells us they need N bodies for some project, and we need to have a team hired by some deadline. We really can’t interview endlessly.
> So make sure you use those "do you have any questions" time to ask questions!
I started giving interviews again and im surprised how many people dont ask anything. I'm an IC, not a hiring manager, and only evaluating a specific thing, (technical assement) and still nothing really.
It just goes to show how skewed the power balance is right now. People are probably afraid to make an extra move that can deduct points for any obscure reason.
When I interview people I encourage them to ask any question they want and I make damned sure it doesn't reflect in my report to the higher-ups! Just imagine being in their shoes, you could be in the same position tomorrow!
Use the right tool for the job. Thats engineering.
Instead you insist we should solve a nieche problem with a ill suited tool, while inventing a costume solution when a standard solution exist.
They dodged a bullet. It would have been hell working there.
Why would you ever want to work somewhere that clearly employs such unqualified individuals? And not only that, but allows those individuals to be the face of their company to prospective hires?
A company's interview process tells you a lot about how the company thinks and operates. This was was surely a dumpster fire.
> Why would you ever want to work somewhere that clearly employs such unqualified individuals
Because you're unemployed and need to work to get some money.
Do you think you're a super intelligent person when you couldn't even figure that out?
Sabotaging? The candidate learned that their interviewers, and probably the company as a whole, isn't curious about languages or stuff that is outside of their wheelhouse.
What if the interviewers decided to ask the candidate about their language choice and trade-offs between different languages? Wouldn't that actually give them more signals into the skill of the engineer, rather than just blindly following their script?
If the candidate asks if you're sure you want them to use any language and you say "yes", and then get pissy when they do, the candidate isn't the one who sabotaged anything and they're dodging a bullet if they "fail".