[orangelimesoda]

> Have experience shipping production full-stack products across modern web frontends and backend services.

I'm amazed that the requirements are so low (or at least this vague) for jobs at companies like these.

Has anyone else had the experience of going to an interview and feeling like you were never asked any qualifying questions?

All the questions were easy, your answers were straightforward, you "got them right", but then were not chosen?

I find on the other side, they're also left with dozens of people who "passed" and then it comes down to a pretty arbitrary decision on who gets hired (if we are talking external, no referral, etc.)

I wonder if they can make job descriptions highly specific to filter the shortlist faster and more effectively (to actually get a shortlist).

Anyway end rant. Cool job, hope you fill it.

[J_Shelby_J]

I interviewed with them and had a great experience despite it ultimately not being a good fit due to communication issues and a bad flu coming on in the final interview - they, and Michael especially, was very kind and understanding.

[jameshart]

This sounds like it’s just an app development role, not a security analysis position, so I’m not sure what your complaint is.

[orangelimesoda]

> just an app development role

Maybe this is part of the problem

[solid_fuel]

Professional app development requires an understanding of security.

[corndoge]

I think the evidence contradicts you at this point

[bostik]

That's quite an indictment of the common app development practices. (Not that I disagree with your point...)

And security is hard. Because it is by definition off the happy path, it is quite often at odds with MVPs and rapid release cycles. Then you add all the ways the users can use your product to attack/abuse others.

Any non-hobbyist app development does indeed require at least a decent understanding of security.

[orangelimesoda]

So you don't need to know anything about credit cards for someone to enter it into an app? I don't get the take (is it bad sarcasm?)

[devmor]

To be fair, for the vast majority of cases, no you don't.

It is extremely rare for companies to roll their own payment processing anymore, or even handle PCI scope at all.

[orangelimesoda]

Credit card entry, I think you should know a few basics like don't put it in MongoDB?? Or nah? It's just like any other user data?

How about a background check - can anyone take a user-entered DL and randomly Google stuff to see what they find?

Can I store your SSN in plain text in a text file? Why not?

The user had to upload their ID for IDV but I use Vercel. I guess I have to put it on S3. What should the bucket policy be for all these driver's license photos - there are so many???

[oenton]

To your last question about bucket policies, clearly you just need to scope it down: arn:aws:sts::*:assumed-role/trustme*/*

(indeed that first wildcard means any account)

[customguy]

Not having clear, objective criteria enables arbitrary decisions (not against OP, I mean in general.. and in general I dislike this pattern a lot). On the extreme other end of the spectrum would be 100% objective criteria, and companies being forced to pick a random applicant that matches them. If they want only the best, they have to have high expectations, but be able to actually define them. You say "cultural fit", I say "corruption", let's blow this whole joint.

[eru]

> You say "cultural fit", I say "corruption", let's blow this whole joint.

It's not necessarily corruption. If there's no conflict between principal and agent, it's fine.

Just like when I sent my butler to go and buy a bottle of wine, he can make arbitrary choices, but that doesn't mean he's corrupt or going against my wishes. I trust his judgement, and since it's a repeated game our incentives are aligned.

[petesergeant]

All fair points and I guess I would dislike it more if it hadn’t benefitted me more. In general, if I can get face-to-face with a human then I have a huge advantage, and any barriers to getting to that point are a net negative to me.

At the start of my career I was under-credentialed, and had to rely on lax requirements to get myself in front of people. I might never have gotten anywhere if my first few employers hadn’t been willing to overlook a lack of degree or commercial (rather than open-source) experience, directly as a result of a funnel with a wide entrance.

[sneak]

It’s not corruption to simply hire the people you subjectively feel a preference for working for, instead of objective criteria. It’s not public tax funds that fuel salaries, it’s your own money. You get to spend it how you like.

Yes, many jurisdictions have outlawed arbitrary discrimination against protected classes (eg race), which is an entirely different matter, and not what we are discussing here.

[customguy]

Yeah, and it's not necessarily mobbing to only tell people you really like about your party. But where it occurs, people never admit it to themselves and justify it in such a way, so that justification is meaningless. All wars of aggression are called a defensive emergency measure. Hundreds and thousands and rarely would anyone say "we'll take this because we can and you're helpless". No matter how glaringly obvious it is, it's never admitted.

In the same way, I can acccept "cultural fit" as a summary of things a person can describe, sure. But I think more often than not it's just a thought-terminating cliché. It can also just mean "I cannot verbalize my reasons and/or don't want to admit to them".

You can say if something fits only if you either can describe both sides in sufficient detail and where it wouldn't fit, e.g. a plug and a socket. But if it's dark, you barely see anything, and just have a "hunch", then "fit" doesn't even apply. It's like telling someone you won't let them through a door because they wouldn't "fit" anyway -- okay, so let them try, if they actually won't fit you don't need to read tea leaves and gate keep based on that.

Preferring to go with a more safe and familiar and obvious candidate, fine. But don't pretend it's because the others won't "fit".

Culture, in so far as it deserves the name, shapes the people exposed to or in it, as well as the other way around. E.g. if only people who fit the culture can work at a company, no company can exist in the first place, because for there to be a culture there need to be people there. So that leaves setting the culture in stone after it grew to a certain size, and only looking for more of the same, which also isn't great, but at least still honest.

If a culture is so brittle it cannot integrate people who aren't already a product of it, that may be a legitimate choice of the company, but my assessment to find that lame is also valid.

I feel the same way about immigration troubles, tangentially. We moan because people we don't actively try to get to know don't care for our rules which we don't enforce in a confident, but respectful manner. We basically require sterile, bland input because we have no immune system worth speaking of and no way to process and refine what comes in.

[jonahx]

I agree the phrase "culture fit" is weasel-wordy, but...

> You can say if something fits only if you either can describe both sides in sufficient detail and where it wouldn't fit

Many human dynamics, including sexual attraction, love, and even just who will be fun or easy to work with, are dynamics we don't fully understand, and cannot fully specify. In all these cases "I'll know when it see it" is perfectly reasonable, and need not be hiding an untoward motive. Which is not say, ofc, that it can't be hiding such a motive. That happens too.

[gbalduzzi]

It depends whether your goal is to hire for specific knowledge (hence specific questions) or for overall mindset and abilities (hence broader questions where you are able to extract the way a person thinks)

[pertymcpert]

If you didn't already know, jobs at highly competitive companies tend to have vague job requirements because they expect to be able to apply your raw intelligence to changing demands quickly. There's no point being hyper-specific about the exact software packages because that's not what they want. What they want is someone who, after talking to an interviewer for 30 minutes, leaves them with the thought "Wow, this person can do anything we need of them. They can probably tell us what we need too and take ownership of large projects. Hire!"

[moscoe]

Agree. Being smart, competent, and high in conscientiousness is more important than any highly specific “qualification”. It’s not about checking a bunch of boxes. If you have a track record of getting shit done, you’ll have something to contribute.

[_superposition_]

This. Being too specific on the stack requirements is a red flag imo.

[orangelimesoda]

> There's no point being hyper-specific about the exact software packages because that's not what they want

Okay. This makes it sound like they're more sophisticated but it seems more like they are less sophisticated, less specific, and a lot more vague in the job descriptions they themselves create.

If you look at any technical role, game dev or something where people are building important things at scale - there are a lot of specifics. Libraries, methodologies, where if you didn't know them you are nowhere near a fit.

I'm just wondering. It's OpenAI. Surely there is some domain-specific something beyond "has experience shipping front-end and back-end services" since that includes basically everyone.

It makes this job look like a Starbucks role.

[devmor]

I see where you're coming from, but as someone who regularly interviews engineers, I don't care about specific tech stacks when evaluating a candidate very much either. I can only think of two positions I've worked in where such a thing really mattered.

A good engineer can adapt and catch up without a lot of lead time. For a contractor, I'd be much more specific - but for someone who's going to join my team? I'm looking for a candidate that can demonstrate their problem solving ability, creative thinking and communication skills.

Other than having some kind of experience in the general domain we work in, those "soft skills" are far harder to find than specific tech experience.

[rustystump]

This is insane to me.

Not every engineering job is entry level or as simple as most fullstack crud. Deeper into industry you find highly specific well defined positions for a given domain. Soft skills matter more the higher the ladder but id take a killer senior who can be difficult over a team of mediocre staff engineers.

[hacket04]

I agree, I recently interviewed at Synthiolabs, and they asked me two questions: one about RAG and two about graph RAG. They rejected me even though I answered correctly, and the interviewer was also a college kid.