[koevet]

The article lists the characteristics of a good engineer:

  * has a better grasp of existing software they can reuse
  * (has) a better grasp of engineering tools, automating away most of the routine aspects of their own job
  * design systems that are more robust and easier to understand by others
  * the decisions they make save you from work you did not know could be avoided

I obviously concord with the analysis (not sure about the 10X myth). It also states that:

  * Google, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, and Microsoft all run a dizzying number of the largest technology systems in the world, yet, they famously have some of the most selective interview processes

This sounds a bit like a paradox to me. Given the current state of "selective interview processes" (algo riddles, whiteboard coding, etc.), none of the above traits can be easily evaluated in a candidate during an interview. On the other hand, these companies do hire stellar engineers: the technological supremacy of FAANG is irrefutable.

[unicornmama]

Former Googler here.

Google views picking new engineers like picking quality construction metals. In the end, the machine melts you down and hammers you into a pristine cog.

[hnick]

The way I interpreted that last comment was as a counterpoint to the idea that large companies necessarily end up hiring many mediocre employees because the talent pool simply isn't deep enough to stack the deck. Instead of just being happy with what they can get, the big tech companies make it a real challenge to be hired.

[joes223]

It's not a paradox because the statement that the interview processes don't evaluate candidates is false. It's proven that this particular interview format has a very high correlation with the future candidate's performance.