[chowells]

Here's the thing: 95% of cheaters still suck, even when cheating. Its hard to imagine how people can perform so badly while cheating, yet they consistently do. All you need to do to stand out is not be utterly awful. Worrying about what other people are doing is more detrimental to your performance than anything else is. Just focus on yourself: being broadly competent, knowing your niche well, and being good at communicating how you learn when you hit the edges of your knowledge. Those are the skills that always stand out.

[hnisoss]

Yea but I also suck in 95% of FAANG like interviews since I'm very bad at leetcode medium/hard type of questions. It's just something that I never practiced. It's very tempting at this point to trow in my towel and just use some aid. No one cares about my intense career and the millions I helped my clients earn, all that matters (and sometimes directly affects comp rate) is how I do on the "coding task".

[titanomachy]

> I suck in FAANG interviews... it's just something I never practiced.

Well, sounds like you know the solution. Or set your sights on a job that interviews a different way.

I think it's mostly leetcode "easy", anyway. Maybe some medium. Never seen a hard, except maybe from one smartass at Google (they were not expecting a perfect answer). Out of a dozen technical interviews, I don't think I've ever needed to know a data structure more exotic than a hash map or binary search tree.

The amount of deliberate practice required to stand out is probably not more than 10-20 hours, assuming you do actually have the programming and CS skills expected for a FAANG job. It's unlikely you need to do months of grinding.

If 20 hours of work was all that stood between me and half a million dollars a year, I'd consider myself pretty lucky.

[moorow]

On the other hand, if 20 hours of leetcode practice is all that stands between you and half a million dollars a year, isn't that a pretty good indicator that the interview process isn't hiring based on your skills, talent and education, and instead on something you basically won't encounter in the workplace?

[titanomachy]

10-20 hours is assuming you’re qualified for the job and just bad at leetcode. I think many qualified people could pass without studying, especially if they’re experienced in presenting or teaching.

If you’re totally unqualified, 20 hours of leetcoding won’t get you a job at Meta.

[devnullbrain]

Agency?

[rramadass]

Right. Almost any time somebody fails an interview it is not because of "very hard questions" but because they did not prepare properly in a sensible manner. People don't want whiteboarding, no programming questions, no mathematical questions, no fermi problems etc. which is plain silly and not realistic. One just needs to know the basics and simple applications of the above which is more than enough to get through most interviews. The key is not to feel overawed/overwhelmed with unknown notations/jargons which is what the actual problem is when people run away from big-O, DS/Algo, Recursion, application of Set Theory/Logic to Programming etc.

[dkga]

Well, cheaters only cheat because they suck and they know it. Otherwise cheat would not be a rational approach.

[wakawaka28]

I don't approve of cheating but I think you're underestimating how hard some interview questions can be. Even competent people don't know everything and could draw a blank, in which case they would benefit from cheating despite being competent.

[bodge5000]

Not just difficult, but there's just so many of them (for the same company ofc). You could ace 3 interviews and not even be half way through the process. You have to be continually on top form for days/weeks on end.

[entropi]

Right, last offer I got required 7 (non-HR) steps over a 4-month period, where around a dozen technical people got involved.

I don't/won't cheat, as I am a rather anxious person who can't really handle "covert ops". But at this point I totally understand those who do.

[wakawaka28]

A lot of these people also have a policy that even one person can fail you. So if you do 8 interviews with 2 people each, then there's up to 20 people in the process that can ruin it for you.

I think LLM performance on previously seen questions like interview questions is too good for it to be allowed. I wouldn't mind someone using an IDE or API docs, but you have to draw the line somewhere. It's like how you can't use a calculator that can do algebra on a calculus test. It just doesn't accomplish the goal of testing anything if you use too much tech, and using the current LLMs that all suck in general but can nail these questions that have a million examples online is bad. I would much rather see someone consult online references for information than to see them use an LLM.

[zeroCalories]

I've only heard of candidates getting dropped like that after they've done something horribly inappropriate(like cheat).

[rahimnathwani]

If that were true we would never hear of top level athletes using performance enhancing drugs.

[nkrisc]

That's different. These candidates are not trying to get an edge on qualifying for the top dev position in the entire world.

Top athletes do it because they're essentially at the limits of human performance and those drugs are the only edge they can reasonably get.

[lubujackson]

Kids at my tiny high school football team did steroids to get an edge - no chance at a scholarship, either.

Different people have a different threshold for cheating no matter the stakes. I imagine some people vheat even if they know the answer - just to be sure.

[listenallyall]

It's much more widespread. Minor league player uses PEDs to make the major leagues. Middling major leaguer uses them to be an all-star. All-star uses them to make the hall of fame. In the context of programming, if some kind of cheating is what's necessary to nab a $150k job, a whole lot of people are going to cheat.

[roughly]

Yeah, we found this when we started doing take-home exams: it turns out that a junior dev who spends twice as much time on the problem than what we asked them to doesn’t put out senior-level code - we could read the skill level in the code almost instantly. Same thing with cheating like that - it turns out knowing the answer isn’t the same thing as having experience, and it’s pretty obvious pretty quickly which one you’re dealing with.