dmansen
Fair enough, but I wouldn't hold my breath!
I prefer to look through the lens of expected value. How can you vote in a way that maximizes the chance that your preferred policy outcomes will go through? "Don't vote for anyone who has supported it in any way" is nice in theory, but there are plenty of times when a vote any other way has lower expected value.
Let's not dismiss what inaccuracy here can lead to: bigotry on false pretenses, violence against innocent immigrants, and blindly supporting wars against "the wrong kind of people."
This kind of question is exactly what I had in mind when I said "pushing to see how you react." I think we agree :)
I don't know the correct reaction, and don't do this when I'm interviewing. My point was that I could easily see a different side of this story, from the interviewer's perspective. Maybe the interviewer understood the OP's solution, and wanted them to explore a different angle.
We're lacking so much context here - what did the interviewer actually say? Was their tone gentle or aggressive? Were they flat-out ignoring the OP's answer, or acknowledging it while taking it through different use cases? We can't know, we weren't there.
I understand there are many places with poor interview practices, but I've seen enough devs come out of these types of interviews with wildly incorrect self-assessments that I no longer blindly trust these anecdotes. Unless they told you the exact reason you failed, you're speculating. And if you're an engineer that repeatedly gets turned down after these interviews at many different shops, you may not know what you don't know. Complaining about the interview process isn't a productive way to improve in those situations.
[note that my critique goes both ways: I have no way of knowing OP's skill, and their story could be completely accurate. however, I see this attitude a lot from overconfident junior devs, and that's to whom this rant applies.]
I ask because we interview lots of candidates who always jump straight to their favorite data structure. Given any algorithmic question, they'll immediately create an instance of their pet data structure (usually it's a HashMap), without specifying the types of keys or values. They can't explain why they're choosing this, and continually try to shoehorn the problem into it even when it makes no sense.
This interview doesn't sound nearly that bad to me. It sounds like you were discussing the advantages / tradeoffs for your choices, given various performance considerations. How do you know they considered you "wrong"? Maybe they were seeing how you reacted to being pushed.
it's also possible to go out to clubs, have one night stands, and want a stable relationship and family too!! imagine that.
im guessing you dont know any young women cause this is absurd
I don't see competitiveness here. I want to see my teammates as people and empathize with them as such.
Therefore, when I'm in a position where I want to throw out a quick "can you just", I try to phrase it differently, because I know how frustrating that comment can be.
Yes.
I'd add: anyone smart enough to be considered an expert in any subject will eventually find other subjects to explore. I'd argue this helps them become a better developer, more than coding in their spare time ever would.
your post doesn't add anything to the conversation
it might technically be a technicality but 10 years is long enough in startup life units that it doesn't matter
you're pointing out definitions when it was clear what the author meant and people don't like that because it's very annoying
On the other side, if you do have a CS degree, have you written application code before? If not, I want to see that you can apply your CS fundamentals to practical business problems.
Of course there are people without a degree who are phenomenal programmers, and people with one who can't write FizzBuzz! Is anyone arguing against this? When we're screening people we need some way of gauging your skill level. A degree is one indicator, practical experience is another.