I was laid off at the start of 2024 and built https://interviewsolver.com which is an AI copilot for helping you with your leetcode interviews. Doing about 6k/month, though the space is becoming fairly crowded.
This is functionally identical to having someone off-screen feeding you the answers.
Things like this will only make the interview process worse for applicants with even a shred of integrity. We need a "black book" for unethical developers.
Eh, I fed our whole question bank to ChatGPT a while back, and it solves the leetcode-like problems better than any real candidates have. Maybe it's time we stopped interviewing people this way...
Wow, incredible. I recently interviewed (as hiring manager) for 3 separate positions of varying seniority. Cheating is rampant now. I'd say at least 80% were using ChatGPT to lookup answers. One candidate had a 3rd party operate ChatGPT for her.
Yes, the nice thing about it being a desktop app is that all interview platforms are supported - browsers are unable to detect these desktop apps due to inherent limitations. There's a bunch of competing services so it's likely your candidates were running something.
Interview Copilot for helping you ace your live coding interviews. Desktop app + companion web mode so it's truly undetectable by interview platforms, controlled by global hotkeys.
Cheating on what, the computer vetting process? Maybe companies should actually interview people in person, then they wouldn't have a problem anymore.
Good candidates are swirling around in the limbo of bad faith automated vetting tools, companies shouldn't be surprised if they use technology to get past the humanless gauntlet. Getting to a human who can genuinely reason about the complex value of a specific human in a specific team should be priority number one, for both candidate and hiring process.
Canadian here, just signed an offer (Not FAANG) for ~360k TC, 30k of that was negotiated up based on advice from this patio11 article. The opportunities are out there, especially now that companies are going remote.
At a Canadian company? A while ago I took a position with a US company who offered quite a bit more than the Canadian org I left. Would be happy to return to Canadian tech but haven't found shops where the money is comparable. TBF haven't been aggressively searching though, but curious about your experience.
Another anecdote. I'm in the Midwest of the US and you won't get that kind of comp without getting closer to the money than an IC.
But we can do this all day. Without larger studies or well run surveys it doesn't say much to those who aren't some combination of very talented, lucky, or well connected.
By all means donate your n95 and surgical masks, but many studies show that DIY masks are nearly as effective in stopping asymptomatic spread so the messaging should be around asking everyone to wear a (DIY) mask when they go out.
God that was horrible to read. Can you imagine trying to do anything with someone so toxic? "Can you pass the cheese please? NO BECAUSE YOU SAID BAD THINGS ON TWITTER!"
These people are not acting in love. They are acting in hate trying to protect those they love. It is shameful. It is how wars start.
@elia's last commit to Opal was about two weeks ago, and that issue dates from 2015. That doesn't seem to add up to what you seem to argue that it does.
It's enough to establish that Coraline's goal is to collect the scalps of people she disagrees with, and the Contributor Covenant is one prong of her strategy. Whether or not she was successful is another matter, but as for intent, it's right there in the title -- "Transphobic maintainer should be removed from project". The Contributor Covenant is quick and clear to emphasize that removal is a penalty for violation of the code, or for not taking sufficient steps as a maintainer to ensure that guilty parties are sufficiently unpersoned.
I'm opposed to racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia too, but damnit, if I'm a maintainer and Alex Jones has a good patch, I'm going to clip out the attached verbiage about Hillary Clinton being a literal demon and roll the patch into my next rc. I'd be doing the project a disservice not to.
The OED has entries that were submitted by an insane murderer from the asylum (look up William Chester Minor).
One incident, three years ago, which came to nothing in any event? I think we must differ in our definitions of 'enough'. Are we looking at an established pattern of behavior which is suggestive of current intent? Or are we instead looking at a single moment of excess, whose outcome provided a salutary lesson since taken firmly to heart? There's not enough here to know - the claim has yet to be substantiated, if substantiation there be.
eta: As it happens, I'd take Alex Jones's patch, too. But I would require it be resubmitted anonymously, and without inflammatory verbiage. If not so resubmitted, I would not merge it. Yes, it does the project a disservice to reject good code. But software, like every made thing in the world, is made by people. It is not unreasonable for me to look at the sort of people who attend upon Alex Jones, and then at the sort of people who find his presence so distasteful that they will not associate themselves with anything he's touched however fleetingly, and decide which sort of people I prefer to include, by my actions, in my pool of potential contributors. If the latter group seems to me to be more likely to contribute good code, then I'm not going to put them off by having Alex Jones on my contributor list. If that costs the project a good patch, then that cost is still less than the other - if I've evaluated correctly, and if the patch has merit, someone not so divisive will submit another like it before very long.
Of course, most people don't give a damn either way, and mainly just want to do the work they're doing and land their changes with a minimum of fuss. Which is more or less the point that I'm trying to make here: this is neither an attempt to install a blood estrogen titer in the code review process for Linux kernel contributions, nor to ensure that Linux kernel development is a clubhouse admitting only pale penis-bearing people of power. Everyone attempting to make a substantive contribution, of whatever sort, to the process, is doing so in good faith, out of a genuine belief that their contribution will improve the quality of the result. But I appreciate that's hard to keep sight of, when Twitter and ESR and /g/ join in, in their inimitable fashion to add only heat and no light.
Your local HAM radio group isn't being infiltrated by social justice activists. Tech orgs don't need a CoC and have functioned mostly fine since the beginning without them. CoCs are pure entryism (the most famous example being Opalgate).
Consider this line from the CoC:
>Comments that reinforce systemic oppression related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, mental illness, neurodiversity, physical appearance, body size, age, race, or religion.
Why even include the line 'reinforce systemic oppression' ? I guarantee that the CoC won't be enforced against someone saying stuff like "Kill all men" or "white men are garbage". They're a tool for expelling anyone who doesn't kowtow to social justice ideology.
One of the most widely used CoCs - Open Code of Conduct -specifically has a section about not accepting complaints regarding ‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’
What do you think of the FIOL Code of Professionalism [1]? To me it seems very fair. Note: This COC has come a long way in the past year or so since Matthew Garrett criticized it for being an abuser's fantasy.
This reminds me of when the James Damore news first broke out and multiple Google hiring managers were openly bragging on G+ about maintaining blacklists of everyone who didn't denounce the diversity memo.
