Readit NewsUS: 15.53
Germany: 8.93
France: 4.37
Brazil: 2.17
How can Macron and Merkel point any fingers?
[0] https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/sc...
But it may very well be that they are willfully (or simply incompetently) turning a blind eye in this one particular case.
1. If you can do all these things, then it really won't take that long to freshen up your your white board skills so that you can solve a variety of algorithmic problems easily in code on a whiteboard. If you really want to work for at a FAANG-style place, then just divert your energy for a bit into practicing white boarding. I agree it's stupid and it's probably not worth your time... which leads me to point two.
2. Given your experience and interests, it sounds like working as a cog in a mega-corp is probably not the right career path for you. You're going to do much better in a place where your role is a much bigger part of the company, and your individual skills will have a much bigger impact.
And as far as the "other professions don't have to do this" line. I worked for a while in a career that was not software engineers and to be honest, I wish there was basic, practical proficiency tests as part of interviews in more fields. The number of professionals in my last field of work that could not do the basic requirements of the field correctly was horrifying.
Actually it does (and that's part of the whole point of the massive burnout crisis caused by these tests). By and large -- they've become so distorted (either by intentionally asking candidates to solve ridiculously hard problems; or by having these goals set, or simply having the tasks so carelessly so as to achieve the same effect) that they've basically lost any grounding in reality.
The only way to soften the blow (that is, to significantly reduce the chance of immediate rejection) is to cram -- that is, to in effect make it your part-time job (for a little while) specifically "practicing for" (that is, memorizing the expected outcomes of) these tests.
Which of course defeats the entire purpose of the "test". As one would think these companies would be smart enough to know.
Yes I know many people are ready to say, "But when Iinterview I just do this simple FizzBuzz-oid thing I came up with that anyone who claims to have a CS degree should be ale to solve." What I mean is -- the last time I had to go through this ritual -- about 50 percent of the time these tests (or simply the environment in which they were conducted) were seriously off-base in one form or another.
And in more than a few cases I wish I could forget, ridiculously so.
They should have a fine and be required to fully restore the land they destroyed.
We don’t let someone who stole a tv keep the tv, not should we when they’re stealing public resources.
Otherwise the message is very simple: breaking the law only adds to the construction cost but let’s you keep the construction.
No, they shouldn't simply be fined and required to restore the land.
In addition to all of this -- they should be put in jail.
That's the only way these people will begin to get the message.
This statement is quite telling: first HR goes to lengths to deny that there's any seriously wrong. Then they pretty blatantly acknowledge that yes, things are so fucked up that you'll likely want to take medical leave.
Why would you ever do that? The whole point of sending over code is so that they assess whether you can write understandable code. I don't know what you have to benefit from this.
> I sent over some different code, it was a 5 line code change that halved the average response time of an API. But I also said you know, I’m not interested in auditioning for you. Either we’re a good match or we’re not, but I’m not particularly interested in being “grateful for the opportunity to apply”, frankly I think you should be grateful that I took a few hours out of my day to explore whether we want to build something together…
Why would you even? Just why?
Hard to have sympathy with this guy, as a result.
"Don't go to the cloud, just buy your own servers" completely ignores the reason anyone rents cloud servers in the first place. If I could easily say "I need exactly this much capacity, no more no less, with no unexpected scaling needs and no code/infrastructure changes" then I'd be sitting pretty. Now for a show of hands, how many companies does this describe?
And of those companies that raised their hand, how many can say "I'm fine with just having a server in Germany" who will then go on to say "and I don't need a CDN to serve customers in other regions"?
>keep running live/live setup...This is very critical
Oh I didn't know it was that easy. If all you have to do to keep a server running is say "stay running, it's very critical" then of course no one needs any managed services. Outages are solved forever.
Completely worthless advice from a text file written by... I'm sorry who is this person and what authority do they have?
His "homepage" is a raw directory dump with a high-contrast black background (the preferred color scheme of 10x engineers).
Isn't that enough authority for you?
BTW if anyone knows of more nuanced explorations of Cloud v. DIY tradeoffs -- we all know there's a tipping point in favor of the latter, somewhere -- please do share.