You’re a fan of the political party whose leader insults and mocks the pope. Literally insulting the person who is channeling the word of the Lord. Why do you support those that deeply insult Jesus?
Chill. GP never said he was against or in favor of the current US administration. This is quite a deranged strawman argument that borders on a personal attack.
This behavior does not lead to clever or constructive conversation. There are much better ways to get your point across.
It feels weird to have to write this but it seems warranted: A religious preference is something that extends beyond the limited time and space of a US political party.
Except a cursory glance at their comment history shows otherwise. You could have put in some basic effort.
Also don't insult our intelligence. It's pretty clear what side of the partisan line someone who says both - "I'm a free speech absolutist" citing Musk while in the same breath complaining someone is being mean to Jesus - is on.
Maybe you are simply projecting some guilt about your electoral choices. I can't come up with a better reason for your comment beyond empty moral posturing.
I'm happy to clarify but also please don't take it personal if this is my last comment wrt. to this; again, this does not really lead us to productive conversation and we can all do much better than that.
All definitions come from Google's AI summary, of course we can argue about those but I think they are pretty accurate.
deranged argument: a "deranged argument" refers to intensely illogical, paranoid, orpathological reasoning that often disrupts rational public discourse, characterized by extreme, often toxic, comparisons. It seems to me like that label is warranted, GP just wrote "I don't like that the game mocks Jesus" and got a somehow extreme response that I would definitely characterize as an "extreme, toxic comparison".
strawman: a dishonest debating tactic where someone misrepresents, exaggerates, or fabricates an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack. In this case, GP wrote "I don't like that the game mocks Jesus", whereas the discussion was turned by some people into "I like the Trump administration".
Criticizing someone because of their political and religious preferences (and nothing else) is as personal as you can get. Most laws against harassment around the world specifically point out this behavior.
YMMV, if you consider this to not be relevant, it's actually ... ok. We all have different points of view and even "logical" things might seem illogical to others and I mean this honestly and without snark. We don't have to agree, the best I (we) can do is to thoroughly explain our points of view.
There's really no need to steelman here. If you click the poster's comment history, this is on the very first page: "I personally like Trump as a president". So the post was nothing more than the same old pattern of selectively-applied ideals. At this point, thinking there must be some nuance or 4d chess behind this kind of criticism is just foolish.
Are you saying this with an awareness that you're calling yourself a hypocrite? I'm not trying to attack you here, just pointing out the common understanding of Musk's "free speech absolutism".
This is a complete nonsense. OP has invented a tricky technical test for themselves which they have spent long amounts of time thinking about.
In an interview a candidate is not in that mindset, at least I am not. Under stress and anxiety it is very difficult to fully understand things and build good cognitive structures in the mind.
People love to say things like this. In my experience on both sides of these coding interviews in FAANG companies, the questions are basically never algorithmically intensive.
The furthest I've ever seen it go in practice: binary search, BFS/DFS, hash tables. I've never seen any more obscure algorithmic trick than standard uses of these algorithms and data structures.
I'm not saying leetcode doesn't have more insane questions, but interviews tend to be straightforward.
'Principal' developer at my last place spent 100 consecutive days grinding leetcode. Shortly after had an interview where they made him do a leetcode test live and he failed it.
It's a whole separate skill to be able to code with an audience, let alone an audience who is judging you. I could forgive a non-technical interviewer not knowing this but surely someone who is a dev themselves understands the very real performance anxiety. It's bonkers why we do this to people— the best I've seen is the in person talks about their experience, architecture, problems they've encountered and how they solved them and then either code samples from their public code if they have some or a short take-home assignment if they don't.
They could cheat on the take-home but it isn't meant to be difficult and you hopefully figured out at the in-person that they're someone who wouldn't need to bother cheating.
I can't code with somebody looking over my shoulder. I need to relax and think about the task.
They expect me to code while being judged by one or more strangers, against the clock, with high stakes involved. If that was the actual job I would not apply for it.
A good analogy I’ve been told is the NFL combine. Vertical jump, straight-line speed, and bench press performances are probably moderately correlated with on-field performance, but the best test of playing the game is playing the game.
I more understand the emphasis on leetcode problems for juniors but a timed session without an observer (perhaps with browser tracking) to solve those problems makes a lot more sense than bringing in the anxiety of the observer, as you’ve noted. It sucks having to spend mental energy wondering how your problem-solving looks to whoever’s watching and seems actively detrimental to assessing talent for an IC role.
It's almost impossible for me to do any serious work or problem solving in an interview situation due to anxiety and stress-my mind simple does not work the same way as it does when relaxed and in flow.
I interviewed at Amazon for a principle engineering position - got the interview as my resume has some pretty high profile accomplishments. But they just asked me leetcode questiins all day. I don't practice leetcoding so needless to say I didn't do well. Everyone there looked tired and worn out, probably dodged a bullet.
I was approached for Principal at AWS by the team's hiring manager, and I liked them, and was interested in the team's work. But when they couldn't exempt me from the company-standard initial coding screen, I withdrew my application.
I'm sure the manager was great, but we've all heard of some less-desirable aspects of working at Amazon, and I wouldn't want to go there without a sign that I'd be shielded a bit.
So, I've made the "corporate drone coding screen", and Leetcode interviews in general, my own metric. If a company does it, they fail the interview.
And if I'm having a moment of weakness, and considering submitting to some techbro frat hazing, I remind myself that, if I was willing to do that, I would've gone to Google already, which usually would've preferable to whatever opportunity this other company is dangling.
I don’t get why people act like terms like “Principal Engineer” have an agreed-upon specific meaning that can be used in cross-company discussions. At most places I’ve worked the titles were a duct taped hierarchy born of “we needed to give so-and-so another raise but had run out of non-manager titles, so here’s Senior Software Engineer II”
FWIW, the "principal" part implies a few things no matter which org... they should be able to manage a project from start to finish, mentor juniors, and make confident correct architectural decisions.
If you've ever hired a plumber or electrician, you might have gotten a crew of younger apprentices, maybe a journeyman, and an older "master" plumber or electrician. Most of the master's time is spent with the critical mechanical tasks, solving problems that occur, and directing those other tradesmen. The principal is the 1 person who can do _any_ of the other's job if they are unavailable. They are also the 1 person (and ideally the only 1 person) who makes "the plan" for how the work will proceed, and also decides when a project is complete.
The crucial difference (well, one of many?) between a principal-level engineer, and any type of management...is that the principal-level engineer should be able to do every junior engineer's job in a pinch - expertly, and with confidence and adapability to problems.
Some basic level of leetcoding should be fine to verify that the candidate can at least code and is not only a bullshit artist who jumps from one position to the next, failing upwards.
I had some interviews, not at the principal level, we had a couple of candidates who were very good during the informal interviews, they could hold a conversation about technology, but they couldn’t code the simplest of problems. I know folks don’t like it, but this could happen in my humble opinion at all levels.
I don't doubt you in the least: I've also seen BS artists who got through interviews without being able to so much as write a for() loop.
But I've never seen anyone fail upwards as far as a Principal/Staff Engineer level. Last time I interviewed at that position, no one even asked anything about code. They were more concerned about my position on architectural choices, pros and cons of various approaches, knowledge of applicable standards and regulations (I'm in the medical device field), mentoring and team leadership issues and how to resolve them, etc.
Lots of reasons you can fail an interview, doesn't mean they're a bullshit artist. If we want to be intellectually honest about this process (letting a candidate prove themselves), the least we could do is offer different formats for people to pick from: leetcode live coding, take-home, pair coding, PR review, etc.
What is key is letting the candidate decide the format they're best at.
Leetcode's signal is pretty bad compared to pair coding/PR reviews IMHO. And if the job genuinely involves writing algorithms, you can put algorithms in the code and have them go over that.
Take home is probably the most vulnerable to cheating, but if you have them code review it afterwards, it's detectable fairly easily.
None of this makes any sense. Why should I complete a tech test interview if I have 15 years of experience at X top firm? I would have done it already anyway.
I had a ‘principal engineer’ at last place who grinded leetcode for 100 days and still failed a leetcode interview. It’s utter nonsense.
A conversation with technical questions and topics should suffice. Hire fast and fire people.
