I can't find it now, but yes, someone from either Elsevier or Springer actually did spend some time on HN a while ago -- within the last year IIRC -- defending their business model and practices.
Even if they don't read HN, I'm sure Elsevier execs know about the general discontent against costly journals. There have been numerous campaigns [1] to boycott journals published by Elsevier.
I interviewed with them in Oxford UK. The tech people there don't have a clue about the stress they cause the academic community. Only reason I knew is because my wife is an ex-academic. It is interesting however how there is never any astroturfing from their side, which would suggest even they know their position is utter toss and a drain on society.
I spoke with a couple of devs from there who did read HN - though I'm not sure if they also read these threads. They weren't too enthusiastic about them anyway. There's also MrGunn, one of the founders of Mendeley, who occasionally drops in, and though he mostly comments just to correct errors and misconceptions about Elsevier (dreadful as their holding back of science is, people can sometimes take some liberty with reality), he's pretty reasonable.
And I've been approached by one of their recruiters once, despite publicly working on dampening their influence for quite a while now - not sure if that counts :P
>When I get distracted and want to go on HN, most of the time I read a math book instead. That way I either learn math, or realize how much easier my startup is and go back to doing that.
Reiterating my view, I feel like the interviewing grind has become akin to gymming - you go to your mental gym, build up your 'muscles' by doing pointless repetitive tasks AKA algorithms you'd never use in real life (probably like how bodybuilders would never need to deadlift 125kgs in their daily life). It doesn't directly help you do your job but you know bodybuilders have higher than average fitness levels. So in the same manner, devs grinding leetcode probably have higher 'fitness' levels (mostly a type of muscle memory for programming) than devs who don't.
But, if I'm a scout for a football team, I don't want to see you in the gym, I want to see you play football. Maybe, ideally, I'd like to see both, but seeing you play football is by far the more important thing.
So tons of open source contribution in relevant areas with quick high-quality, low-bug-count, beautiful code check-in and demonstrated knowledge in breaking down problems into sub-problems and come up with elegant algorithsm? (something you can see in the field?)
Some analogies make sense, some probably don't map well.
Google prefers to hire Devs with strong CS foundations because they assume these Devs can contribute in many areas.
If they were only to hire someone based off something that they've done before and excel only in that area, they'd be like other companies who only hire selectively based on specific skill-set (e.g.: Java Dev, or 3D/game devs).
No competent team makes decisions based solely on the Combine. It's a data point that gets combined with college game tape, private workouts, and some other special events like the Senior Bowl. Also, a significant number of players who end up getting drafted or signed as Undrafted Free Agents don't go to the Combine.
I didn't make that assertion. I was simply pointing out that the NFL has a set of skills tests that aren't football. Further, the effectiveness of the combine is as widely debated as the effectiveness of algorithm questions.
Except lifting weight has a DIRECT affect on increasing muscle mass. Doing pointless algorithms don't have any direct affect on your coding skills. I know plenty of college grads that can memorize all sorts of algorithms, but are shit at real world code. If I'm a company hiring to do REAL WORLD CODE, I'm going to ask questions pertaining to the position I'm willing to fill. The problem with these companies, is that they are hiring more than they need, therefore they aren't asking questions pertaining to any REAL job they're looking to fill.
It is also a form of “proof of work”. If you are willing to go to the lengths of learning these things, maybe you’ll be able to learn other things that are harder to assess during an interview.
I know hindsight is 20/20 and it's easier said than done, but probably the best way to build social skills is to take up a group sport like football/basketball/frisbee/rock climbing etc. Or join a dance team/music band after a few lessons. Or take up volunteering. Any physical activity in which you're part of a team. This is very important, try to succeed in this as seriously as you study type theory because people skills are important for whichever career/life path you choose.
Immigrated to a new country and went back to school. Both academically and socially, learnt the same lesson - don't quit. Also learnt that there's a time and place for everything - if you miss that window of opportunity, it doesn't matter how hard you grind later on.
I feel like the interviewing grind has become akin to gymming - you go to your mental gym, build up your 'muscles' by doing pointless repetitive tasks AKA algorithms you'd never use in real life (probably like how bodybuilders would never need to deadlift 125kgs in their daily life). It doesn't directly help you do your job but you know bodybuilders have higher than average fitness levels. So in the same manner, devs grinding leetcode probably have higher 'fitness' levels than devs who don't.
I'm uncomfortable with the fact that you can study for a non-entry level interview . In fact, you're very likely to do better on an interview if you haven't been working recently, but have been grinding leetcode questions. It's unlikely this situation reflects the employer's actual preferences.
I can spend my time learning a new skill or technology, or I can do quizzes on algorithms I will never use. Since I'd like to work for myself in 5-6 years, I resent the time I waste on quizzes.
Another analogy is jiu-jitsu: grapplers can train strength and endurance by going to the gym, but many do not. Just working on useful technique also doubles as a workout that improves endurance - for a large number of athletes, this is preferred to a gym that targets muscles in unrealistic ways and has no skill-gaining benefits.
Professional competitors in the majority of physically demanding sports supplement their training with gym work. Tennis, cycling, golf, etc all do. Targetting muscles in gyms have all sorts of benefits. If you are an amateur who competes for fun then you probably don't but if your paycheck is determined by performance than it's likely you're in the gym.
Don't you harbour dreams of having a startup and working with your own agency? Or pursuing a hobby like music or adventure sports seriously? You seem capable enough to do that well, why are you living life like a robot? Leave your job and travel the world with your girlfriend! I could even say you're wasting your productive potential - you could change the world instead of living this happy temporary life. /s
