News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Bash $* and $@ (2017). Parent comment

Re:Bash $* and $@ (2017) by asveikau on Sunday January 12, 2020 @08:18PM (#22031076)
> This is one of the few times where being more knowledgeable than the interviewer is also a problem

I have actually found that is pretty much always a problem. If you pull out something the interviewer is unfamiliar with they will often assume you are full of it. I have had such people refuse perfectly good explanations for things they haven't heard of because they assume incompetence before that possibility.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Bash $* and $@ (2017) by laumars on Monday January 13, 2020 @03:07AM (#22032695)
That's a sign of a bad interviewer and thus also an indicator of potential bad management.

I'd take those experiences as a blessing rather than a curse.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Bash $* and $@ (2017) by cookiecaper on Monday January 13, 2020 @04:06PM (#22038584)
Indeed. I've "failed" interview screens because the reviewer's Python installation was broken, and rather than reading the traceback and realizing this, they just assumed the candidate's code was broken.

Last I knew, that position was still open almost a year after the fact.

[ Parent | on HN ]