From what I understand, Canonical culture isn't great, either. The whole process sounds a lot like what you are talking about -- just hoops to winnow out people for the sake of winnowing.
After that personality test, they ask you to complete a timed IQ test. After that, you'll reach a behavioral interview after which you get assigned a "take home" technical assessment, which then after submitting you can schedule to have technical interviews (potentially multiple). You can fail at any step along the way.
It was one of the more laughably ridiculous interviewing processes I've seen, and thankfully the only one I've seen recently that was so egregious.
Having seen Canonical's personality test, while it's impossible to verify without their marking methodology, it feels explicitly classist (which in the US probably means it produces racist outcomes too)
There are wealthy and poor people all across the country that do or do not participate or relate to any of those named things.
You have identified a very specific type of economic class, which has nothing to do with "race" and/or ethnicity. I also doubt Canonical is only seeking people who "summer" in Martha's Vineyard, regardless of their skin color.
Exactly. That said, some standardized tests have been accused of class or race bias merely by the demographic distribution of outcomes, which requires a lot more explaining than asking whether "Does Buffy's Jaguar leak oil?" has a potential class bias.
In the U.S. class, income, and race are correlated for various historical reasons. Obviously "correlated" means "on average", not a rigid relationship. But discriminating based on class is very likely based on correlation to produce a disparate impact based on race.
How disparate, and how bad that is and even I suppose whether it's bad, are hotly contested ideological questions.
Way too much emphasis on if you went to the "right" high school or college for something given to people with ten year's experience, interest in those that took a hyper competitive view to niche hobbies in their high school years, why they picked the third level institution they did (economic necessity did not seem likely to be an acceptable answer).
> Way too much emphasis on if you went to the "right" high school or college for something given to people with ten year's experience, interest in those that took a hyper competitive view to niche hobbies in their high school years, why they picked the third level institution they did (economic necessity did not seem likely to be an acceptable answer).
Do rich golf-playing Harvard graduates really apply for a remote 100k per-year positions at Canonical? Or what is the idea of such interview?
In the US the two are intertwined because historical discrimination produced reduced chances for black people to make it into the middle and upper class, and this is a generational effect. Consequentially things that discriminate against the working class will also discriminate against historically discriminated minorities.
I don't think there is a way you can assert hiring practices that discern based on economic status are de facto racist in the modern US. That seems to be quite a stretch. In fact, many of the practices at large organizations are designed expressly to favor historically discriminated populations - and in other cases historically discriminated populations don't need an artificial advantage and have outpaced other populations on their own merit.
> I don't think there is a way you can assert hiring practices that discern based on economic status are de facto racist in the modern US. That seems to be quite a stretch.
It meets the "disparate impact" criterion, which is the legal bar for racism.
i've thought about that, trucking could be vulnerable to AI in the next few years...but after Starsky closed, I dunno. Lots of AV shops are kinda in doubt, but we'll see.
BTW, about AV shops, even more interest thing happening - I hear, after just cup of years mass production Tesla EV's, appeared huge demand on EV mechanics.
i'd be happy with a regular software job, for sure.
I wouldn't say sustaining engineering (the bugfixing) was 'coasting' exactly. It's hard work, like a a crime drama every week, day. it can be quite challenging. :)
that's a good point...i have this fear because i've had terrible experience interviewing. i've been closer to the edge than this before...
one reason I stayed at my previous place for 10 years was because i just couldn't interview well...i know better about modern interview practices, which is why i practice so much ( 2-3 hours per day). it feels so far away tho.
I understand, though I doubt you could possibly be worse than me at interviewing :) I remember once when I absolutely blanked out and didn’t answer a single question, when it was just simple questions in subjects that I knew very well. It was super embarrassing. Yet somehow I survived, and here I am doing just fine.
If I were you, I wouldn’t put off interviewing just to get better at leetcode. There are all kinds of interviewing styles, and I bet you’d get hired sooner than you think if you were to do the interviews parallel to practicing.
i had the same thoughts, but one usecase was to quickly create GPU calculations. i wanted to allow users to create GPU kernels but without having to write a kernel.
Data has to get transferred from the GPU eventually, so breaking it up into steps back and forth does seem like over (under?) kill. Hopefully, since they're pipes in memory it won't be so bad as going to disk.
