I’d be interested to see if that ruling would apply with video evidence and no illegal fire arm or reasonable suspicion on the part of the officer. That case seems to uphold the idea of a search on the grounds of reasonable suspicion. That’s not the case here.
That is a difference people make in their mind. I don’t see a difference. The criticism is the critism. If you receive enough negative feedback on PRs after being hired, you will be fired for not be good enough.
The only way to take away the stress of an interview is to not care about the outcome. I don’t and interviews are stressful for me. I present myself as I am and if they don’t like it oh well, but that is a confidence I think most people don’t have. I have been like this since I was junior so it’s not the arrogance of experience. It’s not even the confidence of easily being able to get jobs because in my early career it would sometimes take months to get a new job. I’d ask for feedback if I could get it and accept or disregard it. Some feedback amounted to, “this wasn’t the job for you” and that’s okay.
I just don’t think it’s worth worrying about any particular job when hiring is like dating. You can be perfect for one job and an obvious no for another, so it’s not worth worrying about the outcome. They like you or they don’t.
Your post was about stress not anxiety and theu are different things. My point is that these these kind interviews approximate what you will actually do at work. If someone finds them stressful then they should think about if this is the career for them. Feeling anxious is another thing, but you can feel anxious while being confident because anxiety is about fearing and unknown outcome.
My point is that people should fine these interview styles stressful and that has always been my point and what I have been replying to since you never brought up anxiety until now.
The literal point if interviews it to judge. The point is to find people who will work in the environment you have. I have done work on codebases where bad code means people die, by indirect or direct results. This probably biases me. For example, I have coded in front of a group several times. This year in fact. Sometimes a problem involves multiple people thinking through it. That’s probably why I don’t care about panel interviews as well. I have had to explain myself in front of a group several times.
These are things that people find stressful, but they are part of my job and have been at nearly every one of the little over half a dozen jobs I have held. My current job isn’t even doing anything important. No one dies if I make a mistake and I’ve still experienced explaining myself in front of a group and coding with several people onlooking. I just assumed that’s how the job is as my friends in the same field have similar kinds of stories
People can be stressed I guess, but is normal and common events in your job are highly stressful, then I still say that’s a sign that it’s not the career path for you. For all we know, these jobs have these things because it’s common on the job and a candidate should really feel at ease doing it. That’s my opinion anyway. We can only form opinions based on experience and apparently, mine differs from yours.
I don’t agree at all. I’ve definitely been in lair sessions where the other person has been assigned to babysit me to the correct answer. It’s just an experience that mostly happens with juniors. I’ve babysat juniors to the solution myself.
There can also be zero trust between colleagues forced to pair, especially in debug sessions. I have worked a lot of jobs, so maybe it’s just my experience, but I would not say that if categorized every single pair session I’ve had in my entire career anywhere near half involved two colleagues who trusted each other and didn’t judge.
I’ve definitely been judged as a senior for dumb dumb moments and that’s okay. If you care about people’s opinions too personally as a software engineer, I’m not sure this is the career for you. It’s a career that involves a lot of negative feedback even as an experienced professional.
I guess my question why should anyone feel stressed from live coding? There are some jobs where this is legitimately a common occurrence at your job. Some jobs are big on pair programming. And I don’t think I’ve ever had a single job that at least a couple times a year didn’t have me living coding through a problem. It happened way more often when I was a junior and needed a lot of assistance. If you are stressed by being watched while you code, that’s not great because you are going to have to do it regularly or semi-regularly at your job. That’s whether someone is sitting right next to you or they are screensharing. It’s why I personally am comfortable with live coding. It’s literally a thing I do at work, albeit not with toy problems.
The problem with only hiring people you have met personally is that you miss out on a whole world of people who would be great to work with but had no chance of ever meeting you or your network. I agree that network recruiting is the safest route, but having diversity in your employees is great. If you only hire through your networks you’ll see quickly quickly how you only get one kind of person.
I have seem this happen a lot in smaller companies. It’s also the story of how I’m typically the sole woman in the department. I by happenstance happen to seed my professional network from college with a lot of men (because I accidentally picked a college that like 80% men). I’m a unicorn because many men’s networks include so few women since in IT they tend to be non-traditional and/or generally excluded from younger men’s social groups.
I get tapped via my network all the time. But if the company basically only does referral based hiring me and perhaps one other woman is there for the whole engineering department. It’s way more balanced at 20%-30% of the department at companies that don’t do this. There is some value in shotgun hiring even if it has a higher fail rate than referral hiring. Different kinds of people can bring fresh perspectives and considerations.
Here’s the thing: as a parent you had a high amount of control over what your children consume. Yes, there is peer pressure, but you can just decide to make your kid uncool or weird or quirky. My child basically doesn’t see ads. She travels with her own tablet and hotspot with ad-free services and ad-free mobile games. Tiktok and YouTube shorts is almost totally banned in my house, but she may watch a few videos specifically on my devices under my supervision if she wants to see something her friends send her. I don’t really have a problem with tiktok per se, more how it zombifies kids with constant dopemine hits. Youtube is a whitelist since don’t trust that algorithm at all.
You get the picture. I won’t say that my kid is watching things wholly appropriate for her at all times, but my mission as it stands is to keep her attention span solid and teach her moderation, so some games get banned before she ever get to play them (roblox), some get banned after me seeing the impact on her cousin (fortnite) and some get banned for impact on her (mobile games are evil). The fall out can be severe, but in this respect I’m an authoritatian parent. My word is law. Your feelings don’t matter. You’ll thank me later. Or not. You have a long adulthood play videogames.
Do we though? Alcohol the most commonly used addictive drugs is allowed for adults and even children in many states as long as the adults approve and do it in in private residences.
Parents need to be better about paying attention to games. I remember telling my aunt about a game my 10 year old cousin wanted. She was horrified and said absolutely not. She bought it for him when he asked when they were in the store because she doesn’t take any time to pay attention to game They’re for kids. Even though games are clearly marked with any objectionable material. She “blindsided” by what was in the game when her son booted it up dispite the game be rated as mature, marking objectionable things and me giving her a play by play.
There are a lot of additive things that we expect parents to use their judgment on. Sugar for example. Until someone is talking to me about how we need a bad on soda and BS like that because parents can’t be expected to parent their kids about it, I don’t really care about the most optional of activities that is games. Children have extremely limited access if their parents don’t allow it. Theu buy the phones/tables/game consoles and robust parental controls have existed for a while.
Kids can be addicted to all sorts of things and it’s still on the parents. Because it’s technology we for some reason stop believing parents can do a thing. Oh however would the person who controls the internet ans the devices control their child’s access to social media (another one I see whining about) and video games. As a parent myself, I’m just under the impression that at least watching in my circle, the parents who don’t aren’t paying attention or don’t actually care that much, they just don’t like the outcome judgment.
That’s because someone can easily track your address via a phone number. This is why I have a burner VoIP number to give out until I trust people.
Every company has learned that any friction to using your site is a bleed of customers. There are a lot of people who will just not use your site if it requires a lengthy validation process. If there was some kind of identity system that sites would integrate with like login.gov, then people would ignore this, but I don’t think the UK has such a thing that every site can use, so a lot of people will not use the site and over time fall to piracy or illegitimate sites.