←back to thread

You're Not Interviewing for the Job. You're Auditioning for the Job Title

(idiallo.com)
191 points foxfired | 2 comments | 02 Sep 25 21:31 UTC | HN request time: 0.576s | source
Show context
quantified ◴[03 Sep 25 00:04 UTC] No.45110714[source]▶
Ha. I like to give a systems design scenario that rewards simplicity. Candidates who complexify it (usually in very predictable ways) get rejected. The few who see the simple path have been great hires. Because they also asked the right questions.
replies(2): >>45110828 #>>45111069 #
harimau777 ◴[03 Sep 25 00:53 UTC] No.45111069[source]▶
Isn't that just another kind of trick question? It seems like that relies a lot on the interviewee guessing that you aren't looking for a standard complex solution.
replies(2): >>45111322 #>>45111633 #
theamk ◴[03 Sep 25 02:22 UTC] No.45111633[source]▶
By "trick question", people usually mean the questions that won't occur in real job. This does not seem the case here.

I have no idea what the OP's actual questions was, but as a made-up example: If the problem is solvable with static sqlite database copied to every node during deployment, but candidate suggests master-master postgres cluster instead, I would not want them. I shudder just thinking what kind of monstrosity they'd build if hired.

replies(1): >>45111750 #
1. harimau777 ◴[03 Sep 25 02:42 UTC] No.45111750[source]▶
Maybe different people use the term differently? To me a trick question is one where answering it requires intuiting some specific secret to solving the problem. In this case, it would be intuiting that, unlike most interviewers, this one wants you to give a simple solution instead of showing off your knowledge of system design techniques.
replies(1): >>45112376 #
2. quantified ◴[03 Sep 25 04:57 UTC] No.45112376[source]▶
Every time they complexify it, they add latency, storage costs and probability of failure. It's all easily quantified.