Its in google / Nest's best interest to put in common place security measures like MFA or notifications like detecting an unknown device accessing the camera. If I'm paying this much $ for a product, i don't want to have to deal with having to understand the 100 different ways it could be compromised and having to deal with that.
The issue is not so much white boarding as that is a broad term like others have mentioned. Using a whiteboard is a common part of many jobs. But it is not often that we have to write 100% correct code that compiles on whiteboards quickly.
What whiteboards should be testing for is problem solving, and whether a candidate can use a whiteboard to illustrate, communicate and collaborate towards solving a problem.
So if the question becomes whether or not problem solving should be evaluated, i think the answer is obviously yes, and algorithms have a place here. However, algorithms should not be the ONLY way to evaluate this attribute.
But it is not often that we have to write 100% correct code that compiles on whiteboards quickly.
I'm not looking for 100% correct code. I'm just looking for evidence that they've actually designed/specified something in enough detail to start implementing, then actually implemented that something, beyond the level of cookbooking assignments from coursework. There is a big difference between those two levels of experience.
You don't even need to make something that completely runs. I just want to see evidence that given a brand new problem, you can understand enough to see what the several implementation problems would be, and I'd like to see if you can completely specify the solution to just one or two of them.
algorithms have a place here. However, algorithms should not be the ONLY way to evaluate this attribute.
If they can do everything with reasonable efficiency with just hashes and vectors, that's fine. What I want to see is if they've actually built something, and effectively dealt with all of the details that come up, or whether they're blind to the concrete details and just want to handwave them.
Love this thread. I see this a lot, where engineers blindly follow best practices and have urges to re-factor code when its not necessary. Big files are not necessarily bad and I love that a lot of the comments are with me on this. Having to open several tabs and remembering where you are in the stack can be hard once there are more than a couple of frames / function calls in. There is a lot of benefit to keeping logic in 1 file or 1 function, and there is a time and a place for writing really granular DRY code. As with all engineering, there are always trade-offs to every decision and I think its about time we put to rest some of the traditional rules of thumbs and 'code smells' new engineers learn and adhere to like a bible.
> As with all engineering, there are always trade-offs to every decision
This is the cliche that needs to be put to rest.
Yes, often there are tradeoffs. But just as often one thing is better than another thing, and there is no tradeoff.
A worldview in which everything has pros and cons and is ultimately subjective is fertile ground for entrenched habits, because it means never having to admit you're plain wrong, that there is a better way, or that other approaches are simply that much better than yours.
I believe code design is ultimately subjective. Unlike other metrics like performance which can be easily and definitively measured, you can't easily measure 'good' code. The definition of 'good' changes based on the context of the code base and function the code is trying to achieve. In this case, choices like having giant functions and files is definitely subjective.
wish.com | San Francisco, CA | Data Analyst / Data Engineer - User Acquisition | Full Time |
- SQL / Hive / Presto
- Looker / Tableau
- Excel
- Experience with large data sets
- Python or R is a plus
- Comfortable interpreting and analyzing data to make and present decisions through a data-driven process such as designing and interpreting A/B test results
Its sad that everytime there is a post about Facebook the comments are extremely toxic and negative, and don't really even discuss the article itself. I would argue that 80% of all tech companies are doing close to 0 in making the world a 'better place'.
Taken at face value, all those companies were/are all trying to make the world a better place in the ways available to them. But when the externalities of those goals affect other people, they will become hated. Everyone has a different opinion of what 'better' means.
Since giant companies are most able to execute their vision of better, they will get most of the hate from people who have a different opinion of better.
Looks to me like its all just a battle for power: People with ideas but lacking implementation and execution, vs Companies with ideas, implementation, execution, AND momentum. Let's not forget all the different forms of government either...
All other news outlets: Make people click or view ads
Random-blog: Make people click or view ads
Free games companies: Make people click or view ads.
Internet businesses are a vicious circle of cash for ads. Ads are deeply embedded in the business model, but is advertising the goal of any of these companies?
I wouldn't call this toxic in the least. There is no name calling or childish behavior. I would just call it debating.
I have a coworker that is jealous of me and my boss because we go at it, but we both know it isn't personal. It is about making the right call on a project. We each think we are right and just trying to make our point
So I think this thread is just more intense but there is no ill will
I wouldn't limit that 80% to the technology industry. Capitalism isn't optimized for human or societal welfare, it's optimized for resource extraction and the production of disposable goods.
This comment breaks the site guidelines. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. Be sure not to miss the one about accusations of astroturfing.
I think try catch is fine with some documentation or commenting around why the developer chose to do so instead of specific handling for all the different possible exceptions.
Why shouldn't people optimize for the number? At the end of the day, people change, and being optimistic or excited about the job today doesn't mean they'll feel that way 4 years from now. Money on the other hand, is quantifiable and can be saved up, its a much more flexible resource to optimize for than immediate happiness.
one thing i do disagree with is commenting, there is a time in a place and its hard to derive on a rule on exactly where, when and how, but well placed comments are VERY important and can save developers a ton of time.
competition is a good thing, it encourages all competing parties to strive for a better product.
from an investment point of view, its a bit similar to Lyft vs Uber ... pretty much the exact same business, but there is always room to eat market share.
I work on an engineering growth team that focuses on large-scale digital advertising and can say it does work, for the right business, in the right context. You need a proper analytics team, engineering team, and experience to do it right. Most people who buy online ads have no idea what they are doing.
