549 karma · joined September 23, 2020
The most progressive view I've seen so far in the "official" dogma of pairing says to accept people who work better outside of pairing, but to exclude them from important projects. I'm at a loss as to how this is a good thing, and to me is a sign of pairing becoming a religion of extreme bigotry.
Thank you for saying something that should be common sense! Don't expect everyone to work and think in the exact same way!
Many can, but over time that practice itself becomes evident to a good interviewer.
No process is perfect, nor can it be. But, that a few can slip through doesn't mean that all can, or do.
It's there, but it doesn't seem as persistent as it is with Facebook, right now and over the past few years. People within the tech community are often noted to defend and praise many of the worst things Google does. Furthermore, there seems to be a card deck of typical points you can expect to see when inquiring on the matter. It just feels like a strange forced narrative, like Monsanto criticizing Crispr or something (not that that's happened, but you see what I'm saying).
It really feels like a club of big people bullying one of their own, and I can't put my finger on why it's happening. Could be nothing, but it's just too consistent to be 100% likely coincidental.
And by no means am I presenting threshed out points or claiming to cite stats, more just asking for discussion for those who can perhaps see a bit of what I'm trying to get across.
But on reach, I think that might be it: Facebook has more of it among a larger population (and possibly one that has more effect on the rest those around them). So you're saying they're being targeted because they're more influential? That really says something about the rest of them too, don't you think?
Or got someone else to do it for you.
I think you underestimate the skill of interviewers. You can learn a lot about a person from one directed conversation, if you want to.
All of the interviews I've done over the past few years have used leetcode, or some variant, but most of them used it only as one dimension when considering candidates. If someone was leet at coding, but bad at team work, they didn't have a chance. The opposite position was far more favorable (I've heard "you can train people to have skills, so hire for the things you can't teach" more often than once). In fact, I'm seeing companies swing the pendulum a little too far away from skills, but that's to be expected, when doing this kind of balancing.
You're making a lot of assumptions about the comment above yours. Language changes.
You caught me. I didn't realize that the author having misused this above expression would point to how big a piece of trash the rest of the article would be. Had I done my due diligence, I wouldn't even have bothered commenting.
Could you explain the reason this is so?