aldarn

You might want to try UberConference, which is free and also automatically transcribes conferences with high accuracy (note this may be a paid feature I'm not sure). It also does some extra neat NLP stuff to detect sentiment, topics of conversation, etc.

Not sure what you mean by this? Where are you based? The language can be set in the top left corner.

Please tell me you're trolling... you actually want your software to run when there're errors and not have it blow up in your face? I don't even... ah screw it.

I think you misunderstand what "10x programmer" is intended to mean (even though I hate this term and think it is mostly rubbish). A 10x wouldn't make some ungoldly amount of complexity "just because", they would implement the simplest solution that meets the given requirements - hence they're "10x more productive" than other developers; this doesn't mean 10x LOC, just being pragmatic. The ones you describe are the non-10x.

Anyway IMO you have more like 4 types of dev, the ones who fail to write fizzbuzz, the ones who can do the vast majority of what they are asked, the ones that can do everything and can self manage and stay focused on (and clarify) product requirements (probably what you mean by 10x) and the ones that have highly specialized skills (e.g. ML, graphics, embedded systems, etc).

Do you specifically hire D3 developers? This sounds like a pretty difficult "coding challenge" for a non-D3 guy, let alone someone who may not even primarily use javascript. Having used D3 sparingly before i've found it something that requires a fair amount of upfront domain knowledge to get much done beyond something extremely simple (unless of course you copy an existing example, which is what I always did). This seems unreasonably difficult for someone with no prior knowledge to accomplish in a 48 hour window whilst working etc -- you may find you are inadvertently optimizing your interview process for the unemployed with this kind of time limit / coding investment.

This is a great example of why the OPs question could be a good or terrible interview question -- it's not clear if they want the obvious technical solution (comparing datetimes) or a wider discussion about "what is a date time and how is the data represented", "what are the real world / business implications", "here is existing technology using intervals that will solve it" etc as you mentioned.

In my experience interviewers are usually looking for the technical solution despite the business oriented solution usually being much more applicable (and thus relevant) in the day to day role.

Key thing to remember here as an interview candidate is to clarify with the interviewer the scope of the question and the nature of the answer they're looking for. If for instance the interviewer starts with the simple technical solution and then probes the business aspects this might be a nicely rounded question.

True, I didn't include those cases as they are not unique in terms of why there is / isn't a conflict. But you're right, worth including for completion.

This is close but you need to ensure the start time is before the other ends, and test for the second one starting before the first also. There's four cases:

[appointment 1 start] [1 end] <-- some time --> [appointment 2 start] [2 end] (case 1 - no overlap, appointment 1 first)

[appointment 1 start] [appointment 2 start] <-- some time --> [1 end] [2 end] (case 2 - overlap, appointment 1 first)

[appointment 2 start] [appointment 1 start] <-- some time --> [2 end] [1 end] (case 3 - overlap, appointment 2 first)

[appointment 2 start] [2 end] <-- some time --> [appointment 1 start] [1 end] (case 4 - no overlap, appointment 2 first)

So you need to do:

if (appointment1.end > appointment2.start AND appointment1.start < appointment2.end) OR (appointment2.end > appointment1.start AND appointment2.start < appointment1.end) // conflict

I spent about 15 minutes going through the tutorial before getting bored and trying to find a real game, only to find I have to finish the tutorial. I get that there's a lot to explain but man that tutorial is long.

A way to solve this problem would rather than explaining everything up front add a campaign whereby you first play games against AI with only the basics unlocked, then as you advance explain what the newly unlocked thing is.

The main problem here is that you have a new match for each new feature, but walk through it step by step with tutorial messages. Just having one message at the start of each tutorial message "this is unicorn, unicorn does X" and then let the player figure it out would go a long way IMO.

I'm not sure this really addresses the issue? Personally I actually would appreciate the upfront salary discussion as it could potentially save a lot of wasted time.

It seems to me the issue is more there was a difference in expectations between what the candidate perceived was their situation and what the recruiter believed. This is of course not uncommon, however from the sounds of it the candidate was not given an opportunity to reason their position. It could be that GitLab is simply not offering competitive renumeration based on what the candidate believed they could achieve in the same market. It could also be that GitLab undervalued the particular skill sets of the candidate. Of course the opposite may also be true.

Clearly there were differences in opinions, however by asking the candidate to sign an agreement to a specific salary based on no discussion is only going to cause issues for everyone. Either the candidate agrees, goes through the interview and decides "it's not worth it, and now there's no flexibility", they disagree and a potentially good candidate is immediately lost or they agree, take the job and feel like they are not being fairly compensated, which can have all sorts of consequences.

This is usually why the discussion happens at the end of an interview process, after the candidate has had the opportunity to demonstrate their skills and experience. Then if there is still a perception of a mismatch this can be reasoned with respect to what has previously been discussed.

> Secondly, we never would ask you to agree to something that is below the calculators suggestion, however your expectations based on Level, Experience, or Location may differ from the recruiter or hiring managers' assessments.

The candidate has clearly stated they were offered less than what the calculator suggested. It was your recruiters opinion that they did not meet the parameters entered into the calculator, however clearly the candidate believed that they did. In this case the recruiter must judge the cause of the disparity through discussion with the candidate and set expectations in terms of the results of this discussion. Again, simply telling a candidate "this is our opinion, you must agree to it" is not going to benefit anyone.

Indeed you need a client that is capable of mapping allowed methods and links to something useful, but it's not hard to imagine how one might go about this:

* For related resources (imagine a DB FK), instead of listing a uuid you point a link to the location of that resource. This means if the resource location changes the client doesn't need to be updated, it just uses whatever the new link is.

* Methods listed can drive available actions, e.g. imagine you have both mutable and immutable objects, a smart client could reason if PATCH is available then a UI element can be spawned allowing the user to modify this resource.

This is useful in a single client scenario whereby the API schema can be modified to a certain extent without the need to modify the client. It is also useful in a multi-client scenario (either distinct or versioned clients) for ensuring consistency between clients as you no longer need to ensure all clients are modified to use the new schema.

At least, this is how I understood it, I haven't tried it in practice.

I believe it's easier to read a native language than code. I would also counter there is no harm to comments like this so just because you don't find it useful doesn't mean someone else won't.