←back to thread

Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test

(www.gwan.com)
1764 points fatihky | 4 comments | 13 Oct 16 15:15 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
jsmthrowaway ◴[13 Oct 16 23:17 UTC] No.12704997[source]▶
I am doing neither of those things. I said it was tempting, because it puts things I've read about G-WAN into perspective (the claims I saw some time back when I was shown a heads-up versus nginx were questionable, and it's an interesting data point). That's why it's an unrelated addendum, and it's completely unrelated to the blog post at all.

I have no desire to discredit someone I have never met and whose name I do not know, much like I have no desire to have my intentions explained to me by a Hacker News commenter. I wrote, quite clearly, that I wasn't doing something. To directly assert that I am in fact doing that thing and then ascribe further malice to it is to challenge my honesty and integrity, and I'd appreciate if you'd not do that in the future because you've never met me and know nothing about me.

There is an interpretation of my first bullet that would support your conclusion, but I only put down my first bullet to establish relevance in the comment, not to connect the two things.

replies(3): >>12705198 #>>12705542 #>>12711153 #
dilemma ◴[13 Oct 16 23:56 UTC] No.12705198[source]▶
I never said anything about your integrity but you inferred from my comment just like others will do from yours.

The difference is the individual you're disparaging is a real person with a reputation. You, like me, are a throw away account on a message board. You have no integrity because you have no identity.

replies(2): >>12705235 #>>12705876 #
Gigablah ◴[14 Oct 16 00:02 UTC] No.12705235[source]▶
I wouldn't call an account almost three years old a "throwaway" anymore.
replies(1): >>12705264 #
1. dilemma ◴[14 Oct 16 00:08 UTC] No.12705264[source]▶
Underwrite his mortgage and ask him to be the godfather of your firstborn.
replies(1): >>12705485 #
2. Gigablah ◴[14 Oct 16 01:04 UTC] No.12705485[source]▶
Looks like he really did hit a sore nerve.
replies(1): >>12705616 #
3. jsmthrowaway ◴[14 Oct 16 01:35 UTC] No.12705616[source]▶
The repeated charge that I am somehow disparaging and discrediting an individual was my clue that I should probably disengage. I probably should have worded the first bullet differently, in hindsight, but still.
replies(1): >>12707935 #
4. Fordrus ◴[14 Oct 16 13:35 UTC] No.12707935{3}[source]▶
Well, the problem here is apparently one of human relations. You are absolutely, 100% remiss to expect that, when you state "it is tempting to draw that conclusion," that you are actually stopping short of drawing that conclusion. It's as bad a communication mistake as expecting Quicksort to perform well in all cases is - which is to say it simply does not conform to reality.

Raising the possibility of the accusation and defining the basis for raising the accusation are, for almost all intents and purposes, exactly the same as simple raising the accusation, especially in an internet forum, where nuance, body language, and tone are absent.

Thus, you really didn't avoid actually disparaging or discrediting this person there - instead, you attempted it via an obtuse use of a 'sneaky' method, and you bear deserved downvotes for doing so. If that was not your intent, you may look on this experience as a bug - the language you used did not communicate your intent to your discussion partners. It's almost always valuable to gain a deeper understanding of the functions you're using, though, whether they're from English or C++! Have a great day, and talk to you some other time! :)