|
|
|
|
|
|
by SadCordDrone
918 days ago
|
|
|
> All the non trivial contributors are exclusively from a country known for Infosys, clickfarms for social media engagement, gamifying the interview/recruitment funnel (see Grace Hopper convention) I see your other points are valid but this was uncalled for. The person who commented the telemetry issue (Kailash Nadh) is also from India and CTO of largest stock broker, he is also known for encouraging open source software. A large amount of contributors to GSoC and LFX programs are Indian college students. All the dysfunctions you mention are symptoms of large population - of which I too have been a victim of. But I have seen some very good engineers in this country too. |
|
|
Me too.
One of the best Indian candidates I interviewed was the one who had the worst college grades... probably because they focused on internalizing the material and actual problem solving. The other candidates all studied Leetcode, and was dumbfounded when asked a simple, non Leetcode question. The question was to bruteforce and guest a password to a website. I provide them the API definition to Login with a Username and Password. All they had to do was generate every possible password between 8 and 20 characters. There is no rate limiting and we don't care about optimality or runtime. The only tricky bit is that there are a variety of business/password words such as password strings can't start with a number. If they call the API with 5 passwords that don't satisfy the password rules, they get locked out. This isn't worded as a Leetcode problem, but it's really just generating every permutation and filter out strings that don't match some condition checks (which I enumerate for them. It's not a blackbox). Asking people to program against this API: boolean login(username: String, password: String) was enough to trip up these people with Masters degree.
The problem with people cheating the system is that it harms candidates like this.