RIP Philo

LOL, is this for real?
Permalink BibimbapClinton 
December 6th, 2017 3:48pm
Either way, the guy's a cunt.  I'm not surprised he didn't get the job.

If he's heard of fizz buzz, he knows the purpose and necessity of screening developers (everybody with more than zero experience has encountered some highly qualified developers who can't write even simple code).

But nevertheless this guy, has to turn in to a over complicated macho  chest beating exercise,  create a solution that doesn't work,  a day somehow thinks this is a good thing to boast on his blog about.
Permalink MobyDobie 
December 6th, 2017 3:55pm
It was a classic neural-net implementation, pretty clever one too.  I'm surprised it worked so poorly -- probably needed more training cycles.

It could also be a demonstration of misapplying technology -- when you've got a hard and clear algorithm that is well understood and needs no approximations, applying a neural-net solution to it is a "nail, meet my favorite hammer" moment.

Also a good example of creating a solution through obfuscation -- the obfuscation in this case being neural-network-technology.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
December 6th, 2017 4:02pm
Very good answer, Hubble. I love you, Brah.
Permalink BibimbapClinton 
December 6th, 2017 4:04pm
Seems to be a mismatch between the requirements of the job and the candidate.
Permalink Zaq 
December 6th, 2017 4:05pm
By the way, that was your introduction to using Python with TensorFlow.
Permalink BibimbapClinton 
December 6th, 2017 4:07pm
I like that guy.

If he's OK with moving to a foreign country I'll hire him.
Permalink Scott 
December 6th, 2017 4:07pm
Hello Brice, this is better than R and VB Access?
Permalink BibimbapClinton 
December 6th, 2017 4:08pm
The problem that interviewers always have with programmers is that as a general rule we're very elitist and egotistical by nature.

So it's often not possible to distinguish between the egotistical dickhead who is justifiably mortified that the employer uses a primitive test as a hiring screen --- and on the other hand the utter out-and-out fraud who can't do anything but who has masterfully created an impressive backstory.

I'm assuming that this guy is the former legit type but either the interviewer didn't care if he had talent, or, he mistook the guy for the blowhard type.

However, on top of all this the interview is a two-way street. If you have to play-pretend to take an elementary interview question seriously, then what is the place like to work for?  But FizzBizz is legitimate and I personally would tolerate it.
Permalink Bored Bystander 
December 6th, 2017 6:03pm
PS: there are tons of blowhards in programming who have constructed a great back story. They're better at marketing themselves than they ever are at real work. My area is populated by them, and they are the default "experienced programmer" I've had to work with.

But for some weird reason this type never actually crosses over into real marketing where those talents have a purpose and aren't a distraction from current business.
Permalink Bored Bystander 
December 6th, 2017 6:06pm
So the guy's blog has this comment:

> if the job was advertised as a Senior position I wouldn't be asking them to code anything, instead I would be asking them about past projects and what real world experience they have.

... and I have worked *under* and alongside a score of alleged high level senior developers who never get around to coding and delivering anything unless it's a hack of an existing library or other existing code. And who can't create a workable design for someone else to build.

That type totally thrives in the touchy-feely, "let's converse like old tech friends even though we have never met" interview space.

They tend to be hired based solely on personality and an alleged track record which they managed heavily.
Permalink Bored Bystander 
December 6th, 2017 6:14pm
"Seems to be a mismatch between the requirements of the job and the candidate."

Are you sure? No doubt the job ad called for "rock stars" and "only the best".
Permalink Reality Check 
December 6th, 2017 6:26pm
IMO, if a candidate does this and you're too stupid to understand what he is saying, you don't need to hire him, and he definitely shouldn't work at your shit shack.

However, if you find what he said interesting and/or amusing, then further talks are warranted.
Permalink Reality Check 
December 6th, 2017 6:28pm
I would rather eat my own ball than work whereever the fuck
MobyDobie is shacked up at.
Permalink Reality Check 
December 6th, 2017 6:29pm
And this thread demonstrates that even many competent programmers are aspie retards, who are looked down on by management, and by normal people.

We all know the field is full of fakes who can't program anything.

And we all know that most employers have trouble screening the fakes out (since the fakes still get hired)..

So when an employer does try to screen the fakes out, instead of a simple 1 minute answer before moving onto the meat of the interview,  you guys think it's cool to act all insulted  (because this employer is supposed to psychically know that you aren't one of the fakes), or turn it into a macho chest beating exercise.

....if an employer wanted to check that you were legal to employ by asking say for you tax payer ID,  I'm imagining half you guys would act insulted,  and most of the other half would give it in binary or something.
Permalink MobyDobie 
December 7th, 2017 2:14am
It’s a joke Moby you get that right? Haha comedy. Speaking of aspie retards....
Permalink X 
December 7th, 2017 2:36pm
It's not funny.

As evidenced by the fact that more than half the people in this and similar threads think that his answer, or simply being offended by fizz buzz, is a reasonable response.
Permalink MobyDobie 
December 7th, 2017 2:41pm
I read that piece as satire from the moment he mentioned perceptron. I found it pretty funny, nodding my head along with his development of a neural net to do fizzbuzz. So OTT.
Permalink , Cup 
December 8th, 2017 2:15am

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: December, 2017 Other topics: December, 2017 Recent topics Recent topics