

Nothing is more indicative of a bullshit job than the interview - CountHackulus
http://programmingisterrible.com/post/116698171738/nothing-is-more-indicative-of-a-bullshit-job-than

======
CountHackulus
This part definitely rings true to me: "We have very little idea about what
makes good code, so it should come as no surprise that we have little-to-no
idea how to find people who are good at coding, along with the dozens of
complementary skills."

------
chrisbennet
I don't think you can judge a company just by the questions they ask in
interviews. Judging a company by the way the _interviewers_ interact with you
is perfectly valid, but I wouldn't treat the questions they ask as indicative
of anything more than how bad they are at interviewing.

Company's generally suck at interviewing. It isn't what most/many of the
interviewers were hired to do and it isn't their core competency. You don't
want them to judge you based how good _you_ are at things that have little to
do with programming. Conversely, you should cut the interviewer some slack on
things thing that have little to do with what _they_ do every day.

You and your interviewer have agreed to meet for a date at what turns out to
be a bad restaurant. Make the best of it and look past the food.

Google had an admittedly poor interview process* (the puzzles turned out to be
useless at predicting anything) yet Google is generally considered a perfectly
nice place to work.

* They found that interviews poorly predicted performance of the candidate.

------
JoeAltmaier
Seriously? More indicative of the amount/quality of resources available to the
hiring process.

