← Back to context Comment by rbanffy 11 years ago Interviewer time is expensive and candidate time is cheap. 7 comments rbanffy Reply bphogan 11 years ago Running git blame is faster than waiting 30 minutes for the results of a whiteboard test. rbanffy 11 years ago Running, then cleaning and then having a dataset that still needs interpretation.I'd take the 30 minute interview route and risk not hiring a clever programmer. iopq 11 years ago Aren't we trying to hire clever programmers? Isn't that the point?If a guy has some kind of a git-mutating program that makes it seem like he writes good stuff, he's probably a good programmer to be able to write such a thing. 4 replies →
bphogan 11 years ago Running git blame is faster than waiting 30 minutes for the results of a whiteboard test. rbanffy 11 years ago Running, then cleaning and then having a dataset that still needs interpretation.I'd take the 30 minute interview route and risk not hiring a clever programmer. iopq 11 years ago Aren't we trying to hire clever programmers? Isn't that the point?If a guy has some kind of a git-mutating program that makes it seem like he writes good stuff, he's probably a good programmer to be able to write such a thing. 4 replies →
rbanffy 11 years ago Running, then cleaning and then having a dataset that still needs interpretation.I'd take the 30 minute interview route and risk not hiring a clever programmer. iopq 11 years ago Aren't we trying to hire clever programmers? Isn't that the point?If a guy has some kind of a git-mutating program that makes it seem like he writes good stuff, he's probably a good programmer to be able to write such a thing. 4 replies →
iopq 11 years ago Aren't we trying to hire clever programmers? Isn't that the point?If a guy has some kind of a git-mutating program that makes it seem like he writes good stuff, he's probably a good programmer to be able to write such a thing. 4 replies →
Running git blame is faster than waiting 30 minutes for the results of a whiteboard test.
Running, then cleaning and then having a dataset that still needs interpretation.
I'd take the 30 minute interview route and risk not hiring a clever programmer.
Aren't we trying to hire clever programmers? Isn't that the point?
If a guy has some kind of a git-mutating program that makes it seem like he writes good stuff, he's probably a good programmer to be able to write such a thing.
4 replies →