pkteison

I’ve conducted several hundred interviews, and I no longer invite argument in them. The stress, knowing they are being judged, the stakes involved with a large paycheck on the line is just not a good environment to antagonize someone in. I’m not going to put my interviewers in that situation, or myself.

And if the value is correcting misunderstandings, I don’t see it. The very fact that the communication failed and there was a misunderstanding is a huge no hire red flag. Communicating clearly matters as much as doing the job

It isn’t. Settings > Privacy & Security > Wired Accessories

Set to ask for new accessories or always ask.

I love this idea, and agree the bugs are important and embarrassing, but find the “it should only take Apple 320 hours to fix Mail search” to be so insulting that it ruins it for me.

What was the solution you went with?

Fair source sounds like a really bad idea. The problem is if you let someone else define what reasonable limits to competition are, you end up in court and learn that it can be anything. Say a company sells me fair source, but I don’t like the company so I fire them and take over for myself? Well, now I get to try to convince a court that I’m not competing, despite clearly having cost them one customer. Just study the history of the constitutions commerce clause, where everything can and has been construed to affect interstate commerce.

Nobody will give you an unsecured loan for 100 percent of your salary, but tech companies will happily grant you rsus for that much.

These articles scare my mom and she gets convinced she will be hacked. I wish there was a way to write stories like this to make it clear it's a real, important issue, but not directly to you. Mom banking on an iPhone is the safest way to bank yet invented, but she sees articles like this and ends up thinking exactly the opposite.

So basically: law intended to encourage domestic industry via economic pressure has intended effect. It's just a one sided argument that any form of trade protectionism is bad.

Going to college is still the most successful route towards landing an interview. My managers generally won’t let me schedule an interview with somebody with no degree, even with personal recommendations. And all of my coworkers have college degrees. I hope people don’t read stories like this and draw general conclusions based on rare outliers.

I've had it take 80 applications to actually get one on-site interview before (and I have a pretty good resume). I would not be suggesting people consider major life changes based on a few dozen attempts not progressing, it can definitely take more than that without reflecting on you.

I have given over 100 on site interviews for a large well regarded company, and I’d say about 20 percent can’t seem to program at all. I have only actually asked FizzBuzz once because it feels terrible to go with that simple a question, but they were failing another easy question and I wanted to calibrate if the easy question was too hard or they really couldn’t program. They completely failed fizz buzz - they started a for loop but couldn’t decide what to do in it, and the idea of directly translating each instruction in fizz buzz into a line of code in the for loop didn’t seem to gel with them. I know there is no way to know for sure, but it didn’t feel like just nerves - it really felt like they had no idea how to do word problems in math class, they couldn’t turn a description with a few bullet points into code implementing them.

So, for what it’s worth, I’ve definitely seen it. I don’t even think it’s particularly uncommon.