simplefish

I interviewed at a company known for consistently asking one of the same four questions in a specific interview round. These questions were widely shared on forums like Blind, Leetcode, and Glassdoor. The recruiters also provided strong guidance on the type of problems to expect.

I prepared thoroughly for all four main questions and any other plausible ones I could think of. I practiced writing solutions to ensure I was fast enough for the interview. Additionally, I pre-prepared ideal answers for each question in case I got stuck.

When the interview came, I got a total curveball: a question that was significantly harder than the usual ones. It didn't fit the round's theme (it was a DSA question, but I'd already aced the DSA round), was obscure enough not to be on LeetCode, and required writing a solver for a hard variant of a known algorithm. I panicked, copied the prompt into ChatGPT (despite being instructed not to use it), transcribed the result, and pretended I had recently studied the relevant algorithm.

I passed the round, nailed the other interviews, got the offer, and accepted. Later, I found out that interviewers are instructed to pick one of four specific questions for that round, and the one I got wasn't in the list.

I'm left wondering if the interviewer was trying to sink me or was just bored with the usual questions. The whole experience raised several questions for me:

Is it cheating if I already had pre-prepared answers for the questions they were supposed to ask? What's the difference between using pre-prepared answers and using Google or ChatGPT during the interview?

If the interview had gone according to plan, what was I actually demonstrating? My ability to use Google?

When the interviewer asked an impossibly difficult question, I would have failed if I answered it legit, even though I'm a good engineer. Failing such an unfair interview round doesn't serve the company's interests.

What is this interview process meant to demonstrate? My true value as an engineer lies in my ability to communicate clearly, think outside the box, identify and address technical tradeoffs, mentor juniors, and propose technical solutions that meet requirements while minimizing risks. Yet, I'm expected to solve a hard variant of the Traveling Salesman Problem in 45 minutes or I don't get the job? Why?

The whole process seems broken, but I'm not sure how to fix it.

I'm confused by the way you say something is "technically" true, then claim you believe it isn not true. Are you really saying that you believe things you know aren't true?

> How much is this currency supposed to be worth?

Whatever we agree it to be worth.

> According to this argument, any number is potentially valid!

Yep. And the value of US dollars, for example, has changed hugely.

> This means that there is absolutely nothing that should hold the value of the currency fixed

Accurate. Note the demise of fixed exchange rate regimes.

> Not true! If the exchange rate of the dollar decreases, you'll see the Federal Reserve will start trading some of its goodies from Fort Knox (gold, etc.) for US Dollars, in order to maintain the dollar's exchange rate/value.

That's not how the Federal Reserve works. Nor exchange rates. Nor US dollars. There's so many errors packed into that sentence, I'm not sure where to begin. There was a time when US dollars were backed by gold, including the gold in Fort Knox; this is no longer the case. And while the Fed does intervene in the markets from time to time, that's not how they do it. Further, the mere fact that interventions are necessary underscores just how arbitrary the valuation is. If, as you argue, USD were backed by gold, the aggregate value of all USD would be US gold reserves; no intervention would be possible, and selling gold reserves would actually lower the value of the dollar. Think about the implications of your argument.

> My point is that raising people out of poverty should not be used as a measurement of a systems [...] success.

I have no words.

> Your arguments are quite flawed as they could be applied in favour of feudalism or plain cattle slavery.

Not at all. I could make some solid suggestions for proven ways of improving on feudalism or slavery. But I don't know of any likely ideas to help Bangladesh beyond what they're already doing. More to the point, RodericDay apparently didn't have any either.

If I say Apple knows a few things about global supply chain management, and thus it might be a good idea not to criticise them as clowns who couldn't run a lemonade stand, it does not follow that I disagree with all criticism of every business everywhere just because my arguments could, in theory, have been made about other companies. Because that particular argument would be wrong applied to almost any other company.

> Also, "Communist" China has raised quite a lot of people out of povert as well.

That was the precise process I was referring to, and as I"m sure you're aware (hence your scare quotes), it was via the operations of modern global capitalism, very similar to what is even now beginning to take place in Bangladesh and elsewhere in the Asian periphery.

> I can't accept the notion that one has to have a thoughout solution to a complex problem to be able to express ones views.

To be sure. But RodericDay went far further than that. First, he didn't have the faintest suggestion of a solution; he didn't even suggest an avenue to explore. And second, he wasn't just "expressing his views"; he was condemning the system and its supporters in the harshest possible language. There is a difference between suggesting that it would be nice if Bangladesh could improve even faster, and saying that people who are pleased with their progress are pro-slavery.

It's easy to stand on the sidelines and hurl brickbats at a system (global capitalism) which has raised more people out of grinding poverty in a shorter time than everything else we've ever done in all of recorded history combined.

It's harder to offer real suggestions to actually improve the lives of the poor. And I see you don't.

Your outrage may make you feel good, but it helps no one but you. And that makes it selfish.

So let's summarize: The Indian government spends billions of dollars (which are desperately needed for other purposes in a poor country like India) propping up the price of wheat. This causes many farmers to switch from growing vegetables to wheat. The drives up the price of vegetables, and would drive down the price of wheat, except for political reasons the Indian government would rather let the wheat rot than give it away cheaply. As a result, many of the poor can't afford wheat, and the ones who can can't afford anything but wheat, leading to rampant malnutrition.

Or even shorter: India spends billions of dollars on a policy that does nothing except ensure they have a rate of child malnutrition almost twice that of sub-saharan Africa.

tl;dr: Socialism, lol.

(Oh, and as Spodek pointed out, famines are caused by a lack of money, not food. It's been known for DECADES that if you want to stop people starving, you need to give them cash, and cut barriers to trade.)

I...see. Let's recap:

You said that wealth should not be equated with job creation. I said that this was wrong, and it should be. You admit that this is true (and indeed, that it is "trivially obvious"). But your say that other people often simplify this true argument so that, while still correct, it lacks "nuance", and this means that you are justified in making untrue arguments against it.

That certainly clarifies things. I withdraw my criticism and apologize for my ill-considered tone.

There's not much to elaborate on; the argument literally makes no sense as presented. You say "wealth is better thought-of as a measure of how many jobs the owner of a company could have created, but didn't." It isn't.

Apple has $100b in cash. Are you going to seriously tell me that if Apple gives $10b back to shareholders via a dividend that, regardless of what those shareholders do with the money, total employment for the economy as a whole will be lower? And that, further, if those shareholders had never invested in Apple at all total employment for the economy would be the same? In other words, that dividends from an alternate-world Apple would not both be a sign that the possessor had created jobs in the past, as well as a potent mechanism with which to create jobs in the future? Because, that's exactly what you're saying, and there isn't an iota of evidence in your favour.

Or to take another tack, the internet has been all atwitter about asteroid mining recently, funded by, among others, Larry Page and Eric Schmidt. You're going to sit here and say that it's clearly the case that, if we care about unemployment, the money they're sinking into the venture should have stayed with Google. That, somehow, if Google had decided to go into asteroid mining, rather than the founders of Google, it will magically create more jobs? Because...what? Again, there is no theoretical basis or empirical evidence for this notion.

I could go on forever. Your argument is lunacy on its face, and when we unpack it, it is based on levels of misunderstanding and mistakes all the way down. I'm sorry, but if you want more than a contemptuous flame, you're going to need to do better.

I'm not sure what you said you be any less true. You seem to have no understanding of how a modern economy works, or how the banking system works, or what a salary represents, or what wealth is, or what the determinates of unemployment are, or what it means for a job to be "created", or, hell, even what a "job" is. There are so many flaws here, it's hard to even figure out where to start.

You will be unable to find a single economist, economics textbook, or economic model which agrees with your premise.

I'm struggling to believe that you really didn't notice the sarcasm in my comment. :) Obviously you can swap all the names on the list for right wing equivalents; it would be just as horrible.

Also, I must reiterate: Companies are not people. No supreme court decision has so held. And Dartmouth College v Woodward does not so hold. (Dartmouth holds that companies have the same right to contract as people. It doesn't hold that they are people. The logic is that only people have rights, but they don't lose those rights just because they organize their affairs along a corporate form. And to protect the real rights which real people have, it is sometimes necessary to allow corporations to exercise those rights.[1])

Oh, and while we're at it, Citizens United doesn't hold that money is speech. (Citizens United holds that money facilitates speech, not that it is speech, and that any restriction on things which facilitate a protected action is a - potentially unconstitutional - burden on that activity.)

Your understanding of these cases seems...lacking.

[1]: If you want an example: I get a second mortgage and sink all my savings into a start-up. You can't now come and seize my company, nor my company's assets, without depriving a real person (me) of real property. But I have the right to due process, and by necessity that extends to my company's assets. On the other hand, you can restrict my company from voting (as is, in fact, done) without impairing the rights of any real person. I would lose everything if you take my company's assets; I lose nothing if you don't let my company vote. Every single right that the courts have extended to companies follows this logic: That companies need this right protected in order to protect the rights of real people. The New York Times has free speech not because the Times is a person, but because real people with free speech rights wish to exercise those rights via the Times, and restricting the free speech rights of the Times would be an unconstitutional burden on the rights of those people.

Ridiculous strawmen sure are fun to demolish, aren't they? Who needs logic or accuracy?

Um. I don't mean to be nit-picky, but that proposal isn't going to do anything. Let me explain.

The proposal is to prevent new power plants from producing more than 1,000 pounds of CO2e per MW of power produced. Coal is around 1,600 pounds/MW, natural gas is around 800 pounds/MW. So what happens?

1) We build new natural gas plants, and burn all available natural gas at ~800 pounds/MW. Given newly discovered shale gas reserves, this is going to be a fuckton of gas, and hence, CO2e. (Note: This would have happened without the new regulation.)

2) We keep all the old ones around, and burn all available coal at 1,600 pounds/MW. Given known US coal reserves, this is going to be a fuckton of coal, and hence, CO2e. (Note: This would have happened without the new regulation.)

All the new regulation does is ensure that all available coal is burned in old plants, instead of being burned in a mix of new and old plants. Since coal produces the same 1,600 pounds/MW either way, this is completely pointless. At best we're delaying the rate that we burn coal (with fewer coal plants, it'll take longer to chew through the coal), but the climate, sorry, couldn't care less about that. Either that carbon is in the ground or in the air, and if it's in the air, it's causing damage.

If you want to have some impact on the climate, you need to figure out a path that leaves fossil fuels in the ground unburned. Tinkering with the rules about new power plants doesn't even help.

The policy he advocated can be spun in a way that sounds socialist. Phrased the way he did it though? No, that's not going to get you labeled "socialist" anywhere.