Hacker News Reader

Comment by victor9000 | Hacker News Reader

It's pretty funny to read this headline.

I interviewed with them about 3 months ago for a Senior Engineer position. I aced all the design, coding and algorithm questions and then spent an hour brainstorming the ways that Uber can improve the quality of life in a city. The brainstorming question was super ambiguous, so I explored lots of different angles and kept the conversation pretty high-level. I was rejected because "We have a really high bar and we expect good problem solving at the business level". Really? You want Senior Engineers to implement business initiatives? Yeah, ok. I'll say this much, burning through a billion dollars doesn't sound like good problem solving at the business level to me.

View on HN

When ever I read a post like this, I can't help but reflexively think that their interview process must be a pretty good filter. Going through your post history, I see only two years ago, you were asking:

> my app will need account creation, a map, REST requests, and notifications. what's the fastest way to get from 0 to mvp? do I need to build a native app for every platform? can I get away with a web app?

and a year later was Lead Engineer at a couple of startups

Yes, this may come as a surprise to you but some people do research before jumping into a new tech stack. And since you seem to be concerned, I ended up using Cordova/Ionic.

Right, sure. But these are pretty basic questions. Questions that you wouldn't expect a lead to be asking a few years hence. You understand that right?

I think you're assuming that informed individuals don't ask basic questions. Or maybe you're assuming that all engineers are up to speed on the latest in mobile development. Either way, you're certainly off the mark.

Actually, I go through a similar thought process when starting a new project, even if it's something I'm completely familiar with. It's a part of validating your assumptions, so you're always working with the best tools for the task.

Pretty sure you didn't ace anything. The fact that you think you did shows that they made the right choice.

Pretty sure you're completely ignorant of the situation and feedback.

While we are ignorant of your particular situation, by objective metrics, "aced the interview" is commonly defined as "they offered me a job for a salary higher than I had expected". Since they didn't offer you the job, presumably the others involved in the process did not come out of the interview thinking that you were the right person to hire.

It rings of hubristic delusion to claim that nonetheless, you "aced the interview". While hubristic delusion may in fact be the best attitude for self-advancement, depressive realists (likely in high representation on here on HN) might offer a more balanced "I thought I had aced the interview, but apparently the interviewers thought otherwise".

What an odd comment. Are you familiar with his situation?

Familiar enough to know that if he really would have aced the interview there's no way they would have dismissed him for that reason. The fact that he blatantly and hubristic claims he aced it adds to the warning signs.

You have no idea of what you're talking about.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com