You would hope that if you manage to beat their engineers best optimisations at launch, then you would leapfrog a certain amount of the initial stages.
Then again, this may just be a way to get free ideas at optimising their product from outside the box.
Old habits die hard. And engineers are pretty lazy when it comes to interviews, so just throwing the same leetcode problem into coder pad in every interview makes interviews easier for the person doing the interview.
How do you know if one candidate happened to see the problem on leetcode and memorized the solution versus one who struggled but figured it out slower?
It's very easy to tell, but it doesn't make much difference. The best candidates have seen the problems before and don't even try to hide it, they just propose their solution right away.
I try give positive feedback for candidates who didn't know the problem but could make good use of hints, or had the right approach. But unfortunately, it's difficult to pass a Leetcode interview if you haven't seen a similar problem to what is asked before. Most candidates I interview nowadays seem to know all questions.
That's what the company has decided so we have to go along. The positive side is that if you do your part, you have good chances of being hired, even if you disagree with the process.
It doesn’t matter. It’s about looking for candidates who have put in the time for your stupid hazing ritual. It signals on people who are willing to dedicate a lot of time to meaningless endeavors for the sake of employment.
This type of individual is more likely to follow orders and work hard - and most importantly - be like the other employees you hired.
Because if you want to hire engineers then you have to ask engineering questions. Claude and GPT and Gemini are super helpful but they're not autonomous coders yet so you need an actual engineer to vet their outcome still.
How do you think those app store adds are displayed to you? They profile you like any other ad company to figure out which ads you are most likely to click on to generate them more revenue.
Exactly so if they really cared about their customer experience they could easily ditch this dark practice ad stuff in their app store and make it much easier for their customers to navigate safely, all with only taking a tiny hit to their bottom line.
> In fact, they had so many ChatGPT fake apps showing as top results that they had to do something as users couldn't find the real one and it reached the news.
This is after claiming for many years that the walled garden is a necessity to protect users, and their app store is a safely curated utopia which justifies the 30% fee cut.
They spun the whole thing to turn it into a Facebook is the bad guy story, when in reality what they did was eliminate a competitor from their platform without any backlash.
> so why do we tolerate sites systematically blending the lines between ads and content
Precisely because it has started to be regulated.
Pre regulation, companies were tiptoeing forward, creating a new market and seeing what they could get away with with their customers. Now there is regulation they have a line drawn in the sand for them, and they know exactly what they can and cant do to screw consumers. Therefore they all now toe that line, and push as close to it as they can without crossing it.
What follows is a never ending cat and mouse game of companies finding loopholes in the regulation and regulators rushing to catch up and close the holes.
> cat and mouse game of companies finding loopholes in the regulation and regulators rushing to
but here is the thing, most "loop holes" in this kind of law technically aren't loop holes in this kind of laws (but loop holes in enforcement; Because laws normally aren't based on specific technical solutions, so don't care how "clever" you solution is.)
the main problem is hesitant, slow and ineffective enforcement which moves things from "you can't do that and if you do you get increasingly higher penalties the longer you insist to not comply" to a broken "you can do that at a cost lower then your benefit and a bunch of annoying law suite dragging out for years"
best example is GDPR, it's relative clear cut and not vague and most "loop holes" are relatively clear cut not allowed. That is until judges made decisions which where clearly not in line with the text of the law because it was politically very inconvenient that the main business model of all the local news papers doesn't work anymore. Or humoring nonsensical arguments from meta in court instead of just shutting them down the moment meta brings them up. So now companies often don't try to comply with GDPR but instead try to guess "what degree of non compliance is widely allowed" and that is where GDPR compliance becomes complicated and legally unclear.
Then again, this may just be a way to get free ideas at optimising their product from outside the box.
reply