I am trying to make the case that something like social security is economically efficient even setting aside any moral case for taking care of vulnerable people. I believe social security pencils out as a huge positive to the overall economy, and that it is emotional "I don't want to help them with my taxes" nonsense that leads people to oppose it. As an example, look at all of the hard work, documented by Katznelson in _When Affirmative Action Was White_ and _Fear Itself_, by lots of racists to keep African-Americans from benefiting from Social Security when that program was created.
That’s not true. In any discipline when confronted with a test there are two strategies: brute memorization of the question/answers, or developing the skills to tackle the problem dynamically. You cannot categorically claim that LC tests are largely memorization tests rather than raw problem-solving skills. That is just the approach you are capable of taking. Not being able to see up the mountain doesn’t imply there are no climbers above you.
>If that were the case then a normal, well accomplished software engineer shouldn't need to "grind" leetcode to pass an interview.
No, what this shows is that the skill range for accomplished professional software devs is absolutely massive. What these companies want is to find the tail end of this very wide distribution. Leetcode interviews do a decent job at this. If you have been coding for a decade and can't do leetcode mediums with almost no prep, and hards with a moderate refresher on data structures, then you're simply not the in the right tail of the skill distribution and they don't want you. This is what so many in our industry can't accept: you're just not talented enough to earn a FAANG job.
No, these engineers at FAANG companies could not solve those problems cold without having been taught how. I have worked at two, which is how I know. I have never seen a question in an interview I haven’t seen before. Many of these questions went unsolved for decades in the industry, so no, these engineers, who mostly aren’t DSA experts but distributed computing experts, could not solve them cold. I also saw how interviewers used questions to re-enforce their own biases on university, gender, or home country in these interviews.
I'm in a FAANG type company now, a YC company, 3000+ engineers. I'm a Staff SWE with 20+ years of experience (ECE degree) and make $600k+ per year. I've went through the promo cycle here (it sucks).
I can't do any leet hards and can do leet mediums after studying. Some easy's take me a couple of tries. I usually do very poorly in interview coding exercises.
Curious, would you say FAANG offers the right challenges to stay in the 0.1% or 1% if one started out there? Are they actually in the right place to grow?
depends. If your in at the bottom floor, then you will grow with the company.
If you are lucky and join/lead/get a new project off the ground, then you'll also grow.
If you're just trying to move the dial on a normal project, then its very difficult to make any kind of headway. You are surrounded by overly enthusiastic hall monitor types who will put in more hours than you, or post more than you.
I mean it doesn't, because I'm at a FAANG, At a FAANG you are infantalised from the very start, sure you passed a very difficult interview where you have to balance a binary tree efficiently as possible. But you're going to use none of those skills here.
what you actually end up doing is copy/pasting some random code you found using internal code search, because the sensible way of doing it can't happen as that would involve porting a thirdparty library, and doing all the procedural work that follows.
so you hack some shit together, ship out out and hope that it doesn't break. You then decommission the nasty hack you shipped last year and claim credit for innovating. Is your product not hitting the right metrics? loosing users? doesn't matter, so long as the super boss is happy that you've hammered in the REST API for the stupid AI interface, you're not going to get fired.
In a startup/small company, if you fuck up, the whole place is going under. Need metrics? you'll need to find a small, cheap and effective system.
Here, we just record then entire world and then throw hundreds of thousands of machines at it to make a vaguly SQL interface. Don't worry about normalising your data, or packing it efficiently just make a 72 column table, and fill it full of random JSON shit. Need to alter a metrics? just add a new column.
In short, don't praise or assume that FAANGs are any good at anything other than making money. They are effectively a high budget marvel movie, Sure they have a big set, but most of it is held together with tape and labour. Look round the side and you'll see its all wood, glue and gaffer tape.
>But you're going to use none of those skills here.
FAANGs want the top .1% of developers, they don't necessarily need them for most roles. But the point is to hire developers that you could put into any role in the company within reason and have them be successful. 99% of development work at a FAANG is pretty unexceptional and doesn't require exceptional developers. They hire for that exceptional 1%.
FAANGS want a load of loyal, naive people who are willing to work loads of overtime and not ask too many questions. Who better than posh kids from great universities who haven't quite figured out that life isn't a meritocracy yet!?
Sure they also want the top 0.1%, but they have a different interview track. Do you think all those OpenAI engineers that were going to follow Altman were asked to do leetcode?
Designing a test for which one cannot possibly prepare is a problem that’s bedeviled test makers for a long time. The team behind the SAT threw up their hands and said it no longer stood for “scholastic aptitude test” but just… nothing.
LC tests typically copy problems from the university the interviewer graduated from. College programs differ, so this is really a case of what you were introduced to.
There's a fairly popular online LC test company in my corner of the world which was formed by graduates and lecturers from a certain university and they started out by just giving the problems from the curriculum. Result was heavy bias in favour of students and alumni of that university.
> You cannot categorically claim that LC tests are largely memorization tests rather than raw problem-solving skills.
Sure I can. By the time you get to Leetcode hard, these aren't just "can you derive the answer". The questions by design take 45+ minutes and have some weird quirk in it that is nominally related to the core concept being tested. These aren't necessarily meant to be done on the fly during an interview period.
>Not being able to see up the mountain doesn’t imply there are no climbers above you.
a better analogy is that youre on a road and you see a freeway above you. The people above you aren't "better", they are simply on another road, to another destination. But they aren't necessarily worse either. They could be on their way to a dead end job or could be a billionaire CEO.
That is to say, it's useless comparing yourself to other people you don't know. Everyone has their story.
Thank you. You just proved my point that “categorically LC is not largely memorization” by reinforcing that only in specific cases in some specific levels that you do need some specific domain knowledge.
My point is that LC hards were not intended nor designed to be perfromed in an interview setting, and essentially most people will only do the in that typical interview timeline if they've lucky enough to have seen it before or lucky enough to understand the specific domain knowledge.
So I'm not sure we're interpreting the same conclusion here unless you think trick questions are a mark of a "good engineer".
My point is that a claim cannot be made that categorically LC tests are generally a test on memorization. It appears your point does not disprove that. You mention exceptions, that in fact proves the general rule is true (I.e your claim
isn’t of the form: most leet code questions of almost any level cannot answered without spending 45 mins and requiring specialized domain knowledge as a prerequisite). You cannot argue against general rule by pointing out specialized exceptions. Cats generally have 4 legs as a rule. Yes exceptional conditions exists where they don’t have 4 legs, but the generally rule holds true. To argue against, your point must take the form: “as a rule, most cats do not have 4 legs.” Do you understand?
You can disagree, but I and many others can very much make a claim. I argue it can even be a well supported claim. Your personal disagreement isn't a refutal of any and all claims.
>You cannot argue against general rule by pointing out specialized exceptions.
Lertcode hards in interviews have been getting more common for a decade now. At what point do we stop pretending that more cats aren't losing their 4th leg and announce an epidemic?
It shouldn't be common, but it's becoming more common. I haven't seen any claims in any conversion even disagree with the notion, let alone provide hard evidence.
Again, my initial purpose of responding to the OP was his perspective is formed by his own ability, a trap you also fall into. Again, Higher mountain climbers and all. Lower climbers are more numerous and will agree and validate their experience amongst themselves as a group - and indeed they are the larger voice. Feel free to have the last word.
Yes, have a market-based legal system (a set of laws that are established via continuous market evaluation) instead of a politics-based legal system (a set of laws established by decisions made via a political system).
How about not having a corrupt political system? You know, one with transparency, rules, polices and punishes conflicts of interests, and corrupt politicians and judges lose their jobs and go to jail when they break the rules.
Or we could just make the oligopoly explicit like whatever it is you are proposing.
First point: We have a transparent political system…many years ago. The leverage points get co-opt and even separation of powers cannot prevent its eventual gaming and corruption.
Second point: the market-based legal system will not devolve into a system of ineptitude only if the money used in the market system is sound and free from political control, which we currently do not have in the US.
There are things that are justified to exist whose sole purpose is keeping things in-check. If any of your aforementioned tools gets abused by the authorities we can still fall back to using cash. If you take away the fallback alternative, then abuse is much more difficult to keep in check. This is called Game Theory.
The fact that a red ball was drawn is new information that suggests there is a higher chance (however slight) that there are actually more red balls in the urn than green balls. Therefore the next ball is likely to be red.
And 100% of the CO2 found in fossil deposits also originated from the atmosphere, many, many years ago (I.e when the fossils were not in the ground, that quantity of CO2 pre-existed in the air). Let us pause and think about that.
