The shortest, strangest engineering interview I've ever done(bluepnume.medium.com)
bluepnume.medium.com
The shortest, strangest engineering interview I've ever done
https://bluepnume.medium.com/the-shortest-strangest-engineering-interview-ive-ever-done-950e8fa95f4e
60 comments
> You just dodged a bullet.
They dodged a bullet alright, because "Adam" isn't a scammer. He is just incredibly and utterly toxic, and would be extremely damaging to everybody he would be working with and/or for.
They dodged a bullet alright, because "Adam" isn't a scammer. He is just incredibly and utterly toxic, and would be extremely damaging to everybody he would be working with and/or for.
but if he was a scammer, "Adam" didn't have to follow up with a vitriol-filled email chain after abruptly hanging up. This felt personal, he genuinely felt wronged because the small startup calling him back for an interview was not begging to get him on because he was the "best Node/React developer in San Francisco by far" just from looking at his GitHub profile alone.
maybe he wanted to the subcontract the work but was looking for a remote job to make that easier. the trigger to him ending the interview could have been the interviewer mentioning the office
This guy sounds more like the people we've encountered in our careers who seem to get by entirely on confidence and bullshit. All he needs to do is find one vulnerable company that has a weakness in its hiring chain, nestle in, and schmooze his way as fast as possible to a Director or some other "thought leader" job where he doesn't have to write code. It's a tried and true strategy.
Usually the schmoozers don't take such an aggressive route right from the start, but I can see it working on a certain type of company.
In the rare chance that "Adam" was, in fact, as good as he said he was, you still dodged a bullet because nobody wants to work with a brilliant, arrogant jerk, no matter how good he is. Someone could have the demonstrated programming skills of Linus Torvalds and John Carmack put together, but if he acts and talks like "Adam" I'm not going to hire him.
Usually the schmoozers don't take such an aggressive route right from the start, but I can see it working on a certain type of company.
In the rare chance that "Adam" was, in fact, as good as he said he was, you still dodged a bullet because nobody wants to work with a brilliant, arrogant jerk, no matter how good he is. Someone could have the demonstrated programming skills of Linus Torvalds and John Carmack put together, but if he acts and talks like "Adam" I'm not going to hire him.
So he hoped to achieve this by applying to an early stage YC startup with probably under 10 employees??
It sure sounded like he was interviewing at a lot of places. For all we know, at the time of this call, "Adam" was one of those mythical folks who's holding down four jobs at a time, slowly rotating through them as he gets fired.
Again it seems that working at an early stage startup where the work culture is notoriously crazy with very clear deliverables would be the last place such a person would want to work.
Yes, he did something wrong. As soon as he saw the words, "I am the best React developer in SF," he should have known this candidate was a clown. Anyone who says something like that out loud or on paper is not the best anything.
I worked with a guy who introduced himself by saying "Hi, I'm firstName and I'm the world's best Java programmer." He would say that while shaking your hand and looking you in the eye like an otherwise normal person. I gather he had won some international Java programming competition.
Luckily I didn't work with him very much. He was a technical consultant for a customer of ours. He was brought in to hold us to account so he wasn't going to be fun to work with even without the ego...
Luckily I didn't work with him very much. He was a technical consultant for a customer of ours. He was brought in to hold us to account so he wasn't going to be fun to work with even without the ego...
I'm really on a kick these days applying Maya Angelou's quote to people in our industry: "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time."
People who say arrogant things, even in a light-hearted joking tone, often truly are arrogant. Whatever people show you early in an interview process is often true. If they show you good things, believe it. If they show you bad things, believe it. If they either get off-track or hyper-focus on the wrong things... believe it.
People who say arrogant things, even in a light-hearted joking tone, often truly are arrogant. Whatever people show you early in an interview process is often true. If they show you good things, believe it. If they show you bad things, believe it. If they either get off-track or hyper-focus on the wrong things... believe it.
Sure, and confirmation bias says that's absolutely the best way to handle interviews!
I've been on h.news for 12 years, but rarely post. Mostly listen and learn. This one just hit me.
I do a fair amount of hiring. In the past 5 yrs-ish, I've seen a new level of arrogance in interviews. People can (and do) think very highly of themselves. That's ok. But the outright person-to-person rudeness and breakdown of simple courtesy is new. My suspicion is the prevalence of social media as a primary comms method for many, and its tendency to stoke open conflict, has lowered the bar on what is considered "acceptable" in interpersonal contact.
I'm a pretty kind and forgiving soul. But folks like that go on a special list. I don't want to make the mistake of letting that particular person pass through in future hiring rounds. That kind of naked toxicity can kill a team, or at the very least, create a giant management and HR headache.
"Adam" will eventually figure out that everybody you pass on the way up, you meet on the way down. Experience is what you get just after you need it.
I do a fair amount of hiring. In the past 5 yrs-ish, I've seen a new level of arrogance in interviews. People can (and do) think very highly of themselves. That's ok. But the outright person-to-person rudeness and breakdown of simple courtesy is new. My suspicion is the prevalence of social media as a primary comms method for many, and its tendency to stoke open conflict, has lowered the bar on what is considered "acceptable" in interpersonal contact.
I'm a pretty kind and forgiving soul. But folks like that go on a special list. I don't want to make the mistake of letting that particular person pass through in future hiring rounds. That kind of naked toxicity can kill a team, or at the very least, create a giant management and HR headache.
"Adam" will eventually figure out that everybody you pass on the way up, you meet on the way down. Experience is what you get just after you need it.
As someone who has acted in a similar way, I would strike this up to mental health issues.
He feels he has the power in the relationship and gets his jollies off playing the big shot and trying to tear you to pieces. If this is a foreign concept to you then you are probably emotionally stable and not consumed by self obsession and fear.
Again, I have been this way in the passed, but have hopefully worked it out with professional help and happy pills :).
Normal people don’t act like this. They need help. But until they get help it’s best to avoid feeding the monster.
Normal people don’t act like this. They need help. But until they get help it’s best to avoid feeding the monster.
Absolutely. Came here to say this story immediately pings my “mental health problems” sense.
It doesn’t have to be read as an assertion of power - paranoia and related states will get you similar responses. (“The corpo is out to get you.”)
It doesn’t have to be read as an assertion of power - paranoia and related states will get you similar responses. (“The corpo is out to get you.”)
The first mistake was not tossing the application after "Yes, I'm the best". If this is the vibe he's putting out at a time when first impressions are being made, not sure why you'd expect anything different later. This played out very unsurprisingly for me (though I gotta say, I haven't seen that level of negging from a candidate before). Perhaps there are shades of Nigerian scams here: "if they eat up my original ridiculous message, I bet I can get away with more."
Yeah that’s a bit of a red flag, because as a joke it isn’t a sure fire and if he’s serious, he isn’t that self aware
While reading the resume, that would've gotten my attention.
It might make me look more closely, and a little curious, but other than that it would feel like a likely red flag.
While reading the article, I was very curious to see where that claim was going to go, since it was being set up as an interesting story.
Sadly, the claim appears to be just what we probably would've guessed was the most likely explanation.
It might make me look more closely, and a little curious, but other than that it would feel like a likely red flag.
While reading the article, I was very curious to see where that claim was going to go, since it was being set up as an interesting story.
Sadly, the claim appears to be just what we probably would've guessed was the most likely explanation.
I’ve hired at the largest tech companies and the smallest.
Generally you filter out toxic personalities as an absolute priority so this interview was a success.
I also think your process is appropriate for a smaller company. The key difference in my experience is that at the big high paying companies you filter on red flags and the green flags are just checkboxes that must all be passed. At the startups which simply can’t match on salary you have to instead hire on green flags instead and allow some red flags to pass. It’s harder to manage but it’s the only choice you have. So your interview which looks for green flags and is ok with some potential red flags was a sensible process.
Adam seems too naive to understand that different companies by necessity have different processes. Smaller companies are more informal and are looking for green flags not red flags. He couldn’t pass even at a smaller company willing to allow some red flags to pass.
Generally you filter out toxic personalities as an absolute priority so this interview was a success.
I also think your process is appropriate for a smaller company. The key difference in my experience is that at the big high paying companies you filter on red flags and the green flags are just checkboxes that must all be passed. At the startups which simply can’t match on salary you have to instead hire on green flags instead and allow some red flags to pass. It’s harder to manage but it’s the only choice you have. So your interview which looks for green flags and is ok with some potential red flags was a sensible process.
Adam seems too naive to understand that different companies by necessity have different processes. Smaller companies are more informal and are looking for green flags not red flags. He couldn’t pass even at a smaller company willing to allow some red flags to pass.
> By the way, I hope you don’t mind, I’ve added an AI note taker to the call.
BTW, I recommend disclosing this and getting consent before the call.
By the time they've joined the call, whatever service you're using has already captured the person's identity, face, and voice.
And we all know how our field is currently respecting privacy, rights, and even existing regulations, especially in the current AI goldrush.
BTW, I recommend disclosing this and getting consent before the call.
By the time they've joined the call, whatever service you're using has already captured the person's identity, face, and voice.
And we all know how our field is currently respecting privacy, rights, and even existing regulations, especially in the current AI goldrush.
I used to think "they'll tell me what to build and I'll build it." I was plain wrong. Good business doesn't work that way. The more correct way to think is "we're going to figure out together what makes sense to build, from many perspectives, and then we'll build it iteratively and collaboratively."
That implies that on the way to success there will be a lot of communication, push-back, changing requirements, slipped deadlines, disagreements, compromise, shortcuts, refactoring, team meetings, celebration, interviews, promotions, and growth. The best companies have people who work well with other people. The best companies don't need prima donnas.
That implies that on the way to success there will be a lot of communication, push-back, changing requirements, slipped deadlines, disagreements, compromise, shortcuts, refactoring, team meetings, celebration, interviews, promotions, and growth. The best companies have people who work well with other people. The best companies don't need prima donnas.
There are many possibilities around the candidate's behavior. They could be going through a manic episode, or autistic, or just a jerk, or scammer.
OP handled it well, but two things I would do differently in responding.
1. "Sorry you feel that way". I never apologize for other people's feelings, only my own actions, when am am sincerely sorry. "Not-really-apologies" are, IMO, always in bad taste.
2. Not sign emails using "best". Best what? Obviously this is up for interpretation but a dangling best is (IMO) corny and exudes "I am writing unnaturally and I think this is how professional people write"
OP handled it well, but two things I would do differently in responding.
1. "Sorry you feel that way". I never apologize for other people's feelings, only my own actions, when am am sincerely sorry. "Not-really-apologies" are, IMO, always in bad taste.
2. Not sign emails using "best". Best what? Obviously this is up for interpretation but a dangling best is (IMO) corny and exudes "I am writing unnaturally and I think this is how professional people write"
Best is short for "best regards" and is, in fact, how many professional people write. I agree with the rest.
I wouldn't have even responded to the first E-mail. The guy is clearly trolling at that point, and nothing good can come from feeding him.
Not sure if being autistic on its own would cause this, but I suppose it's often comorbid with other things. Otherwise I agree.
That's the reason why you still need to do interviews. Do feed out such folks. Even if you only catch them by accident.
I do not think that guy was only caught by accident. More red flags would have been raised if there had been further interviews.
I wish there was some sort of social-equivalent of FizzBuzz. Something that will filter out 90% of people who are, well, Adam.
This interview was exactly this thing. It filtered out Adam. :)
Wow. Dodged a major bullet. Your process is very similar to how I would like to run interviews on both sides.
I expect that guy is playing a different game - looking for overemployment or obligated to apply for a certain number of jobs per week. He might also just be in a really bad mental place right now and unable to see not everyone is stupid and against him. Absolutely doesn't excuse the bullying and rudeness but might be part of an explanation.
If Adam reads HN maybe these comments will push him to reflect or get some help.
This is part of why we still need to do interviews!
I expect that guy is playing a different game - looking for overemployment or obligated to apply for a certain number of jobs per week. He might also just be in a really bad mental place right now and unable to see not everyone is stupid and against him. Absolutely doesn't excuse the bullying and rudeness but might be part of an explanation.
If Adam reads HN maybe these comments will push him to reflect or get some help.
This is part of why we still need to do interviews!
Job interview for a potential hire: Candidate had a decent resume with previous experience, had passed the initial non-tech interview, and seemed excited about the job. We talked about the job and how they would approach doing it.
Came to the part of the interview where we do about five minutes of sample work - very basic, no tricks.
Candidate opened up screen sharing, stared at the screen for a few seconds, and then unleashed a tirade about about how much they hated the role we were hiring for and that they had quit their previous job doing this because they passionately hated this job, etc.
It was shocking to have them go from excited about X to ranting about X. Still don't know what was going on.
Came to the part of the interview where we do about five minutes of sample work - very basic, no tricks.
Candidate opened up screen sharing, stared at the screen for a few seconds, and then unleashed a tirade about about how much they hated the role we were hiring for and that they had quit their previous job doing this because they passionately hated this job, etc.
It was shocking to have them go from excited about X to ranting about X. Still don't know what was going on.
Given how everything went it seems clear that Adam was just trolling from the start. He seems awfully bitter about something else in his life and decided to harass an interviewer. At least he did it in a somewhat novel and amusing way so that Daniel could get a good story out of it!
How to tell the difference between someone who's been burnt a few times too many and someone you probably don't want to work with in one easy conversation.
Hiring is a hard problem of computer science, maybe even harder than naming things!
Hiring is a hard problem of computer science, maybe even harder than naming things!
dodged a bullet. this guy is an asshole, regardless of his skills. imagine him interacting with junior devs
I hope none of the "decline" feedback I sometimes offer comes across like Adam.
Recently was one of the biggest feedbacks from me.
I got an outreach from a third-party recruiter I hadn't talked with before, for head of engineering at an early startup.
Not even screening call yet, I asked a quick question, they answered it and gave the name of the company, and I spent a few hours of due diligence...
The actual business model they were telling business journalists sounded very predatory. Especially considering they seemed to be making very different claims to consumers (and, apparently, to recruiters) about what they do.
So I messaged the recruiter, thanking them for reaching out, unfortunately not a match, and quick bulleted feedback on why, for their eyes only: (1) I wouldn't be able to build a good team to work on that predatory and deceptive stuff; (2) some other thing, about how the company was incubated, and why that would be unattractive to a lot of early startup eng/tech leadership; and (3) a suggestion to get the actual business model from the company, and be upfront to candidates about it (or have people keep dropping off late in the process, or leaving soon after they join, whenever they realize).
I figured the recruiter would either round-file or respect that. But now I have this "Adam" stereotype to try even harder not to sound like. :)
Recently was one of the biggest feedbacks from me.
I got an outreach from a third-party recruiter I hadn't talked with before, for head of engineering at an early startup.
Not even screening call yet, I asked a quick question, they answered it and gave the name of the company, and I spent a few hours of due diligence...
The actual business model they were telling business journalists sounded very predatory. Especially considering they seemed to be making very different claims to consumers (and, apparently, to recruiters) about what they do.
So I messaged the recruiter, thanking them for reaching out, unfortunately not a match, and quick bulleted feedback on why, for their eyes only: (1) I wouldn't be able to build a good team to work on that predatory and deceptive stuff; (2) some other thing, about how the company was incubated, and why that would be unattractive to a lot of early startup eng/tech leadership; and (3) a suggestion to get the actual business model from the company, and be upfront to candidates about it (or have people keep dropping off late in the process, or leaving soon after they join, whenever they realize).
I figured the recruiter would either round-file or respect that. But now I have this "Adam" stereotype to try even harder not to sound like. :)
I'm kind of more curious how this guy even got an interview in this job market, meanwhile I'm getting maybe 1 every 30 applications.
The blog post explains why they interviewed him. He stood out.
This article seemed to be going good/interesting places, with a few good questions to explore, but then (as told) it suddenly degenerated into someone who appeared to have a personality problem (or going through a really difficult time).
Not only did the personality thing derail other topics in this particular conversation, but the Adam character is tainting some valid points by association.
Not only did the personality thing derail other topics in this particular conversation, but the Adam character is tainting some valid points by association.
And what’s with this GitHub thing, I know a lot of employed software engineers that can get the job done and have no GitHub commits.
To play devil's advocate, talking to the head of customer success seems concerning, not because it's not relevant, but because non-engineers risk not being objective in their assessment. At the very least, the head of customer success should not have veto rights in the interview.
Why do non-engineers risk being biased more than engineers? If the job requires interacting with cross functional teams I don’t see how an interview with a cross functional partner is a bad idea.
OP - I felt like he was contemplating all along (to do or not to do the interview) & suddenly made a decision during the interview. He wasn't prepared to end the interview gracefully. Even if he is an excellent coder, I don't think he would have helped you much.
It could be worse, he could have been hired and then turned out to be a remote North Korean worker using fake ID!
https://x.com/zachxbt/status/1824047425822310580
https://x.com/zachxbt/status/1824047425822310580
He hinted at wanted to be convinced to work at the company. It seems as if he wants people to just know he’s good and people offer him the job instead of applying for it. It’s a bit contradictory since he applied for the job in the first place.
Looks like the interview process triggered him and your intuition was right about it.
> Yes I am the best Node/React developer in San Francisco by far.
This reminds me of candidates who put "Expert in C++" on their resume. To me it's a good indicator that someone is on "Mount Stupid" of the Dunning Kruger curve[1].
[1] https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-12-28
This reminds me of candidates who put "Expert in C++" on their resume. To me it's a good indicator that someone is on "Mount Stupid" of the Dunning Kruger curve[1].
[1] https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-12-28
This is why you interview.
Unrelated, please don't use platforms that don't let you zoom in on images with very small fonts.
On my phone it was really uncomfortable to read the messages back and forth
On my phone it was really uncomfortable to read the messages back and forth
Feels like the guy was a douche, sociopath or some kind of scammer. It's not worth interacting and definitely not worth trying to figure out what happened.
Fun red flag things candidates have said to me in interviewing:
1) Me: I see you have a PhD in computer science, what was your thesis topic? (Because I hadn't managed to find their thesis)
Candidate: Object orientation
2) Candidate (for a unix sysadmin role): I don't see how these questions are relevant to the role.
Me: I do the role currently and these questions are a selection of some of the more interesting shell-scripting things I've had to do in the last couple of weeks.
Candidate (yelling over the phone): I WROTE THE LINUX KERNEL (they didn't have any linux kernel code contributions and weren't even active on lkml)
3) Me: Here's an interesting challenge we're facing right now. See it's right in the hot path of some code that gets called a lot and basically we need (as fast as possible) to count the number of bits that are set in millions of flag variables. How would you approach that?
Candidate (with a smile, leaning back, arms crossed): You're never going to interest a pure computer scientist in optimizing a O(1) problem.
Fun red flag things candidates have said to me in interviewing:
1) Me: I see you have a PhD in computer science, what was your thesis topic? (Because I hadn't managed to find their thesis)
Candidate: Object orientation
2) Candidate (for a unix sysadmin role): I don't see how these questions are relevant to the role.
Me: I do the role currently and these questions are a selection of some of the more interesting shell-scripting things I've had to do in the last couple of weeks.
Candidate (yelling over the phone): I WROTE THE LINUX KERNEL (they didn't have any linux kernel code contributions and weren't even active on lkml)
3) Me: Here's an interesting challenge we're facing right now. See it's right in the hot path of some code that gets called a lot and basically we need (as fast as possible) to count the number of bits that are set in millions of flag variables. How would you approach that?
Candidate (with a smile, leaning back, arms crossed): You're never going to interest a pure computer scientist in optimizing a O(1) problem.
[deleted]
I was given a job "offer" for an international company without any interview whatsoever. It seemed like a scam so I insisted the recruiter set up an interview with the hiring manager. I blew them off as I was traveling for another interview and at least one party was definitely shady. I got a call from an irate recruiter while in the airport returning from a successful interview. Their comeuppance was a delight.
You didn't do anything wrong. Odds are that "Adam" was a scammer. Perhaps he doesn't know how to code at all and was looking for a job that would hire based on his resume, let him cruise for 2 weeks while "onboarding," let him flail around for 4 weeks, be put on a PIP for 2 more, then fired with severance after getting 8 free weeks of bay-area pay.
Or perhaps he does know how to code but was looking for a second job (to do the exact same thing I mentioned above).
You didn't do anything wrong. You just dodged a bullet.