Yes, it's so horrible, just like the on air signs in audio recording rooms from the 1920s are very dystopian, so bad. It's not like everyone is working from home now.
A version of this that would be useful for WFH or private offices is an 'on air' device that you could mount outside your office door, which means it's not connected to your computer and could potentially run on a battery for a week+ or run on usb power directly.
People want to come in sometimes to access a closet, but they don't know if your in a meeting, so it would also need to detect if your in a meeting, and the microphone being on or off is not enough because people often mute themselves. Calendar access is also not enough because sometimes you start a meeting without a calendar thingy, and also knowing if your 'on air' with an open door can tell them if they have to be worried if they could be on camera if they walk by the door.
It could be a very simple LED, it just needs a good agent on your desktop. Also a 'yellow light' for an upcoming meeting in a couple minutes (so this is where calendar access is useful) or an orange light for camera & microphone off.
In my experience, I just need the aha hint and I'm usually good. When I looked them up later I was slapping my hand on my head. How do you detect that?
My POSIWID guess is reducing market liquidity and dev pay by reducing competition for staff. These companies have been caught for it before. Even though I was pretty close in getting these processes reformed at my previous big tech company and nobody hinted at that.
At this point I think it's a self perpetuating system, like medical residency sleep deprivation or 'accrediation', which incidentally makes changing hospitals a 6 month BS process for any doctor.
A certain segment of engineers voraciously and autistically defend the leetcode interview since they were selected by it and probably like competitive coding and they are exhausting to deal with. The sane reformers eventually give up and leave them to their empire of dirt since nobody gets promoted for changing these things in big tech companies.
you can only administer most iq tests once, maybe twice if its been quite a while and you can rely on them not remembering the questions properly to get a practice effect
At big companies HR and legal will say you need a reproducible, auditable, objective and defined interview process or you open yourself to a whole host of lawsuits, and you will get lawsuits because there is blood to squeeze from that lawsuit cow.
Also at large scale you cannot trust the entire corpus of employees since your are well beyond dunbars number, so the process is there to prevent cheater and nepotism clusters forming where random employees hire their incompetent drinking buddies or cousins after a single "lunch".
That process works for small companies, and it's an advantage they should leverage, it does not work for the large ones.
IMO you need work sample tests as a minimum, which means a coding assignment. Some people are great bullshitters at lunch.
IQ test questions are explicitly designed to be things you haven't seen before, solved within minutes per problem. If you've seen them before then the validity of the test is usually invalidated.
Leetcode is effectively the opposite, because each one is usually a CS paper by itself, which by definition took a very hard problem a long time for a very smart person to create and test the solution.
You cannot practically invent the a leetcode solution from whole cloth if you treat it like an IQ test question should be done. It's a sport and you get good at sports via drills until it become muscle memory.
Again, the IQ being measured isn't "Are you able to invent A* search during the interview?" but rather "Can you memorize and apply these algorithms?".
Believe it or not, most humans on earth can study as long as they want for leetcode and still won't do well on them. If you can drill and study for them and your scores improve... bam: that's the IQ test.
A lot of the kinds of questions you'd want to skip have no trick. Also, presumably, if the question is to be swapped then they will not demand a full answer before doing the swap.
I think it's stupid to try to judge if someone has seen the question before. The only time it's wrong to have seen the question before is if someone tipped you off to that specific company's questions. I think that most people are not good enough at writing reasonable questions to attempt it. For that matter they are not good at picking reasonable questions for an interview out of a collection of problems either. People often choose problems that are excessively difficult, ambiguous, or even impossible to answer.
You still need to be able to give a few sentence summary of the solution, trick or not and you will need to be able to give an answer that actually matches if you are going to say "ive seen this question before, [implying you know how to solve it]" while you actually have not and are lying.
It doesn't matter if it is 'stupid', or 'wrong', or whatever other cope you want to invent, people will do it and if your caught in a lie because you do not even know the answer to that, you've disqualified yourself immediately and potentially get blackballed as a liar.
If I've caught such an immediate lie as an interviewer, I'd be a bit relieved on some level because I now have a legit excuse to end the interview series early and go do something else and save my coworkers from doing interviews, because for most interviewers, they are chores.
>You still need to be able to give a few sentence summary of the solution, trick or not and you will need to be able to give an answer that actually matches if you are going to say "ive seen this question before, [implying you know how to solve it]" while you actually have not and are lying.
You would probably fail in an interview with me because you assume things that simply not stated. If someone says "I have seen this before" that does not imply that they know how to solve it. They might have seen the question and decided it was not worth their time, or they didn't actually solve it, or whatever. You CANNOT infer that they are lying if they follow up with "I don't know (or remember) how I (or anyone else) solved it." People have fallible memory. In a high pressure situation anyone can get mixed up, misread the question, etc. So, don't be a jerk.
>It doesn't matter if it is 'stupid', or 'wrong', or whatever other cope you want to invent, people will do it and if your caught in a lie because you do not even know the answer to that, you've disqualified yourself immediately and potentially get blackballed as a liar.
It's so trivially easy to get disqualified, that's stupid. If they really push you, you can say "Yeah I think I saw it a long time ago and I don't remember the solution. You decide if you want to switch." And that is probably the truth in most cases anyway. If someone would disqualify me over that then they're not my kind of people.
As for whether it is a "cope" to observe that these questions are counterproductive and pushed by a lot of smug and incompetent copycats, I think it is worthwhile for one's own sanity to recognize that solving leetcode questions is a separate non-work-related skill. Being good at those questions does not make you a good engineer, and vice versa. Yet, in some cases, your future may be decided by these pseudo-academic timed exercises, judged harshly by baboons.
>If I've caught such an immediate lie as an interviewer, I'd be a bit relieved on some level because I now have a legit excuse to end the interview series early and go do something else and save my coworkers from doing interviews, because for most interviewers, they are chores.
I think what you're really saying here is that you would rather hire a good liar over a non-liar, assuming they have equal leetcode skills. Because that's what you are selecting for if you don't allow people to comfortably say "I've seen it before and I don't recall the answer right now."
A lot of adult ADHD diagnoses came from the pandemic because a lot of people were suddenly without the structure of an office and became adrift and unproductive. The office provided body doubling, some executive functioning, some help with time blindness, a prosthetic environment and more and now they had to make it themselves without any direction while suffering from poor executive functioning. It was not good for many.
A lot of the value of being in an office is to reduce the barriers to social grooming and communicating. It's an emotional morale advantage, and some things are fixed faster or discovered faster when people talk to each other, and people do it better when in person than they do over shitty video calls, where the majority of people have crap setups, and despite your best efforts, will continue to have crap setups. Most people don't have the emotional ability and seriousness to compensate for the barriers that remote work brings up and make sure this important part of the work gets done.
Sometimes the most productive times in an office can be coworker lunch and coworker lunch over zoom calls sucks ass.
I know I will get a lot of people here who seethe 'but for ME, I HATE socializing with my coworkers', or 'my coworkers do socializing wrong and it's a detriment!' and I say to you, good for you, but have you considered that those things might be a negative thing for the rest of your team and the company. The company hired you for your total value contribution to the system of the company, not just your isolated measurable personal productivity alone and to not be self centered about is something to consider, hypothetical person.
> A lot of adult ADHD diagnoses came from the pandemic because a lot of people were suddenly without the structure of an office and became adrift and unproductive. The office provided body doubling, some executive functioning, some help with time blindness, a prosthetic environment and more and now they had to make it themselves without any direction while suffering from poor executive functioning.
Well, and now we have diagnoses and corresponding treatment, intentional & personalized interventions rather than accidental and incomplete ones.
Most of this is the fault of apple and google. We could have native style apps that load in and out like webpages, and have them load in as parts that come in and out too! If we were using objective C, they might even be smaller to load than an equivalent web page.
But we don't due to the app model being profitable as a choke point for the os makers. Web GUIs are worse on mobile than the equivalent app, and there are many things that just gated off that you don't get in the web guis, and thus everything stays as an app, while many apps would work fine as this kind of dynamically loaded native app without any 'store' you would need to go to, just a url you load. The android activity model especially lends itself to acting this way too.
But app clips and google play features you may say. They are too restrictive and clunky, and google play features still need a base app to work.
App designers try too hard to be simple (or whatever it is they're trying to do), and the widgets are often useless or not the ones you want. I don't trust app developers to choose sane options, because they're trying to make an 'experience' or something.
My homescreen has more links to webpages than apps, because they can give me info faster than apps/widgets. I don't have to see the news/ads/videos or 'what's new' modal windows like I usually have to with popular apps. (That said, open source apps tend to be far more sensible. F-Droid has got a lot of hidden gems.)
To be fair, it was the users and developers who asked for this when the original iPhone launched. Apple’s plan was to have web apps be the way forward for accessing anything outside of the pre-installed apps.
reply