err0ne

"Implement a method that shuffles a list" vs. "Shuffle a list"

I would want the candidate to ask me whether they can use their language's standard library. I would say no/yes depending on how the question is framed.

The absolute worst is when question is framed like 1) - the candidate just makes an unwanted assumption, and then acts outraged or smug when I tell them I expect them to demonstrate that they aren't oblivious to the underlying implementation.

Then we venture off whether they can make improvements/trade-offs if the list becomes 10K, 1MM, 1B, etc. records of N bytes etc.

I would have failed you as well. The point is to test whether you have a clear picture of what goes on one layer of abstraction below or if you are confined to the surface.

I don't get the fuss about interviews. They seem to largely consist of basic programming exercises.

You don't need to know the solution before hand and it is easily intuited on-the-fly. I would never hold it against someone to miss some corner-cases or maybe go for a naive implementation first.

I remember a few years ago, someone was complaining that they had been rejected for not being able to reverse a binary tree even though they had a copious amount of OSS.

The thought process is simple and it's an exercise that students do within the first few weeks of their freshman year.

    (struct node (value left right))

    (define (reverse-tree root)
      (cond
        [(equal? root 'EMPTY) root]
        [else
             (node (node-value root)
               (reverse-tree (node-right root))
               (reverse-tree (node-left root)))]))
    

A tree is intuitively defined as a recursive data-structure.

There is one base case: when we reach a leaf.

We want to reverse the left and right subtree at every stage of recursion.

Combine all of this and it's done. I would even be content with a pseudo-code implementation.

This policy was instituted in 1926 to discriminate against another minority entirely.

You should stop framing this in terms of White vs. X. This is misguided and largely a nomenclature issue which is now perverting the way people reason about these things.

What you perceive as "white" does not superpose perfectly with what the actual in-group perceives as white. It's a combination of ethnicity, cultural background, and social standing. The right combination opens a lot of door. Otherwise you are treated like a plebeian, with various degrees of aggressiveness.

If you want to see power, take a look at Harvard's rowing club and discreet but powerful positions of power their alumnis hold.

FAANG are the public facing massive corporations which everyone knows about. There are many more companies with clout and cash that no one talks about and who have their monopolies unchallenged, their position enshrined by regulation, and which are cash machines funding a particular establishment that no one ever talks about.

Yes, because WASPs clearly think of someone named Aaron Shapiro as one of their own. C'mon.

There has been a historical bias against anyone who is not WASP and this bias subsist to this day. And that's not restricted to jewish people or asians.

I have seen lots of disdain for some of my french coworkers despite their talent and value-add and overheard "banter" (behind their backs, mind you) that would have been unacceptable for any other minority.

So, as you see. This is not a matter of white/not-white/white-passing. It's clearly an issue with the cultural identity of the majority-minority of this country and multiple thick layers of biases that need to be scraped.

That's basically any successful minority in any country ever until time does its work. For example, it wasn't until recently that open discrimination toward Jewish people was accepted at certain prestigious universities.

I don't like the label "asian" and "white", they make very complex mosaic look like monoliths.

The US Census Bureau's labels (White Caucasian, Jewish, Hispanic, etc.) is singular in that its the stupidest and most harmful nomenclature ever created, even contextualized with US history.

It has introduced conceptual confusion at every level and is all the more devastating as it is the standard mental model people use to reason about these issues.

It is setting back the US by at least a few decades, the time people realize its inaccurate, and discard it as what it is: trash.

Wait until you see how much the sales people rake in.

The problem with your comment is that it assumes that because someone benefits more from something they represent the bulk of the cost of that thing. That's just not true.

Or that taxation should be made pro rata of the utility someone derives from something which is an odd idea.

Once you give up that calculus you will be hard-pressed to defend these levels of taxation without consciously conceding that this is in fact organized racket. You can dress it with a skirt and call it necessary, moral, or utilitarian, it's still the same beast underneath.