Smart people can get by this filter, as long as they're compliant with less studying.
Average people can get by this with more studying.
Even if you're smart, you will be studying.
"Rockstars" can't get by this filter, which is probably the intent of the interview more than finding amazing engineers.
I think it's possible that you've attached a certain weight to illustriousness of FAANG, but it's an open conversation outside of FAANG that it's not hard for an engineer of 8-10y to get a job there, the question usually becomes: "Why would you want to".
As soon as you get to a certain level in tech, your primary financial needs are met completely and you start to see the shiny veneer of FAANG wearing off.
A lot of what makes them seem competent from the outside is the sheer volume of staff, 100k people can make a LOT of shiny documents and good ideas (the borg paper has definitely made me think of working there).
The veneer falls of Facebook first "Ew, they're scooping up all that data, gross!"
Then Amazon: "They treat people like slaves and everyone I know Ex-Amazon is a burnout"
Then Google: "Everything that isn't ad-tech is a toy, sure, they're rich but you live in a massive bubble.. also "Googliness" makes it sound like a cult"
For all of these you have the implicit knowledge that you're going to be a tiny cog and overall the bureaucracy will be insane.
Anyone who has pulled back the curtain on these companies knows that while the comp is good, the engineers aren't extraordinary just because they work there or work on "x scale problems".
In fact, most Google engineers taken out of Google are fucking useless, because they've developed a body of knowledge built entirely on systems that do not exist on the outside, many of which were developed many years ago to make hard problems simpler.
Why is the defensiveness "unpleasant" when you're the one calling engineers incompetent because they work for FAANG? I quote you:
>
In fact, most Google engineers taken out of Google are fucking useless, because they've developed a body of knowledge built entirely on systems that do not exist on the outside, many of which were developed many years ago to make hard problems simpler.
>
Who is making this unpleasant? You critique a body of engineers, using biased personal anecdotes and no hard metrics, and think I am the one being negative and unpleasant? Insane.
dijit|3 years ago
Google's interview process requires two things:
1) That you're compliant
2) That you study.
Smart people can get by this filter, as long as they're compliant with less studying.
Average people can get by this with more studying.
Even if you're smart, you will be studying.
"Rockstars" can't get by this filter, which is probably the intent of the interview more than finding amazing engineers.
I think it's possible that you've attached a certain weight to illustriousness of FAANG, but it's an open conversation outside of FAANG that it's not hard for an engineer of 8-10y to get a job there, the question usually becomes: "Why would you want to".
As soon as you get to a certain level in tech, your primary financial needs are met completely and you start to see the shiny veneer of FAANG wearing off.
A lot of what makes them seem competent from the outside is the sheer volume of staff, 100k people can make a LOT of shiny documents and good ideas (the borg paper has definitely made me think of working there).
The veneer falls of Facebook first "Ew, they're scooping up all that data, gross!"
Then Amazon: "They treat people like slaves and everyone I know Ex-Amazon is a burnout"
Then Google: "Everything that isn't ad-tech is a toy, sure, they're rich but you live in a massive bubble.. also "Googliness" makes it sound like a cult"
For all of these you have the implicit knowledge that you're going to be a tiny cog and overall the bureaucracy will be insane.
Anyone who has pulled back the curtain on these companies knows that while the comp is good, the engineers aren't extraordinary just because they work there or work on "x scale problems".
In fact, most Google engineers taken out of Google are fucking useless, because they've developed a body of knowledge built entirely on systems that do not exist on the outside, many of which were developed many years ago to make hard problems simpler.
ablatt89|3 years ago
> In fact, most Google engineers taken out of Google are fucking useless, because they've developed a body of knowledge built entirely on systems that do not exist on the outside, many of which were developed many years ago to make hard problems simpler. >
Who is making this unpleasant? You critique a body of engineers, using biased personal anecdotes and no hard metrics, and think I am the one being negative and unpleasant? Insane.