And the glass ceiling means, the average woman is pad 7X cents on the dollar because they're denied promotion and advancement. So that's the point too - they're right.
An interesting point I'm noticing is that almost every time I start to get downvoted for something that is correct and I am able to edit my post to ask why I'm getting downvoted I have observed that:
On HN: my original comment is almost always resurrected and eventually positive upvotes.
On Reddit: my original comment is buried even faster.
I should test using some controls (maybe post something incorrect) to see if the trend continues. My hypothesis is that HN is just a smaller, more niche and possibly better education group due to the content versus reddit.
The sample problems are...well let's just say if every dev I work with had to solve those problems on the spot right now, there'd be no developers in the office tomorrow. And guess what? We still push code. Our application is still being built.
Agreed. I have a spot open now and have done ~10 interviews in the past couple months. We do something much easier - "write a function to return whether a string has a balanced number of parenthesis". Essentially a number, +1 for (, -1 for ), return false if <0, return true if 0 at end of loop.
20% of our applicants pass this, and they all go through a phone screen first..
Or should line 5 halt the loop? What if line 4 did not contain open>0 at all?
If this answer fails (modulo any stupid mistakes; idk if it even compiles), you might consider being much more specific about the desired average runtime complexity.
If this answer passes but would fail if line 4 was modified, you might consider re-writing your problem text to include either "Feel free to ask for clarifications" or "A string has balanced parentheses only if every closing parenthesis is preceded by an opening parenthesis". People tend to not treat interviews like normal interactions, and interview questions don't have a surrounding context so it's hard to determine what it means for an answer to be correct.
As I suggested in another comment, it might be in general bad advice to try to get people to ask clairfying questions about non-contextual interview problems. If you want to measure social adeptness / willingness to ask for clarification -- which are important! -- consider interview questions that have a "role playing" component or actively invite the interviewee to ask questions.
Most programmers that have any business getting hired should be able to do that. The problem is that when you interview people, you don't get a good sample of the population: The worse you are, the more interviews you have to do, because you get declined a whole lot.
In a previous job, a question like that would not even get a 20% pass rate, but it also have a lot to do with where we were sourcing our employees: If you are talking to generic contracting firms that employ people in giant, generic behemoths, you WILL get a lot of terrible candidates from them. From the powerpoint architect that hasn't written a line of code in weeks, to people that just had a job at big megacorp, and did the minimum possible not to get fired (and, in some of those corps, that's really little).
It got that bad that there were employer patterns that we considered resume black flags: Spent one year in MasterCard? Well, they hire pretty much anyone for a year, and they just don't get renewed, so we will understand that experience as 'you weren't good enough to work there, and most people there suck'.
wouldn't that just see if there are an equal amount of parentheses, not whether or not they're balanced?
For example, your code would return true for ")())((" even though nothing is balanced.
I was thinking more of a stack; push to stack only on opens, pop on closes, if we get a close before an open is on the stack, then we return false.
But I only thought about it for a few minutes so it's rather rudimentary.
In other jobs we have given very simple coding exercises to do before the interview (fizzbuzz like or simpler), and have gotten solutions that do not even compile.
Exactly. I can't tell you the number of positions I've interviewed for with very challenging questions when their entire app is a basic CRUD app. Many views, basic CRUD. Everyone thinks they need the best.
Which wouldn't be so bad if they didn't form the majority (or at least appear-to, judging by the net-effect of everyone interacting in the public-sphere).
Like @zo1 said, we don't really know the real landscape either. Just think of how little it takes to silence someone like Marc Andreessen. Now think of all the commentary people in tech don't say, especially on social issues, because the online masses with pitchforks will be after you.
Unfortunately that's the way it is for a lot of people after a certain point. The only counter example of this in tech I can think of is David Heinemeier Hansson.
Okay everyone took this a bit too literally. Obviously I don't mean he was literally silenced. But I would bet he's self-censoring a bit more: "I now withdraw from all future discussions of Indian economics and politics, and leave them to people with more knowledge and experience!" which was then followed by five tweets to explain the original tweet. That kind of reaction has to influence his willingness to speak on other topics not directly related to tech.
In our current hyper sensitive culture there's a lot of expectations that people think a certain way.