Great to see Asianometry here. Jon has such a huge number of interesting videos from semiconductor industry based to water supply to failed business models.
I want to like Asianometry, I find his video topics interesting, but my god the dryness puts me to sleep like no other. I understand this is a draw for many to watch his videos so I understand it's just not for me but I wonder if anyone else feels this way.
His video topics are interesting, but I can't shake the feeling that I'm just watching what amounts to an ai-level summary of a slew of wikipedia articles with some added images and captions to keep viewers somewhat engaged.
I somehow like his way of presentation with his dry humour. But maybe because I'm already interested with his topics (mainly related to IC industry and Asian history).
There's plenty of times where I've outright laughed at a reference he's slipped into his videos, e.g. a Far Side reference in a video about cow cloning.
NileRed and NileBlue are actually super interesting to me! But in that creator's case I think what they do is highly visual and stimulating in that way.
And the iPhone typing gets worse - I thought that I was getting worse at typing until helping a relative with their older iPhone (I have an XR). Typing on theirs was a breath of fresh air. I remember it being like that on my previous phones. My wife's iPhone pro max types just like mine. They are actually making it worse...
Think about the breadth of your experience with perspective of where you want to land. You sound like a person that likes learning and applying SW tech. That is great for a generalist role or a maybe a CTO of a varied SW tech stack. Is that trajectory where you want to land? If you want to be in a role where you need to be responsible for multi-disciplinary stacks, you don't sound like a generalist. For SW, you do. I hope your experiences line you up for the role you want.
Talking to others about the problem, but more critically, take to heart and learn their debugging techniques, not just getting others to problem solve for me. I learned to use a debugger, profiler, check compiler output, rubber ducky, five whys, etc. by seeing others apply the methods. I already understood those methods existed, but they came alive and I understood them at a deeper lever by seeing others apply them.
Agreed. When I am really stuck, I print out code that I think has a problem, bring a pencil and nothing else and go somewhere else. Coffee shop, break room, park, it doesn’t matter. Just a change of scenery. It’s amazing how well it works for focused debugging. I just need to do it more often and sooner.
If you are committed to using the leaker, change your email for them from company@myserver.com to company2@myserver.com and block company@myserver.com. It gets the benefit of spam blocking and leaker traceability in one easy step.
I’ve been using a catchall, same as in the article for ~20 years. I’ve had some support people confused. All I have to say is “I have a system that helps sort my emails”. People get it after that. I’ve caught 10’s of email leakers. I don’t fear signing up for a sales led webcast (or other unsavory types) that I know will sell my info. Interesting how the author didn’t have a similar experience. I must say that modern spam filter have made the utility of this less critical. I’d never go back to the old way.
"Any technology they list on their resume is 'fair game' - they had better know it, and if you have direct experience in a niche technology that they list, grill them to see if they are being 'honest'"
Such a strange stance for MS to take (IMHO). I've got 20+ years experience in lots of different languages and different technologies. I've been looking for a new job and have been brushing up on skills for interviewing. I just don't think it's possible for me to be ready to be grilled by a current expert on 15+ languages that I've shipped high quality, production code. The flip side is to only list the three I can take a grilling on today on my resume? It seems like a pretty short sighted approach. Maybe they have moved on in this stance?
Grilling may not be the best word there, but if you say you worked with language X, I think it makes sense to give you some questions about it to gauge how good you are with it. Some people stuff the resume by mentioning every language that they did for a toy project once in college, and then we don't want them to be put in charge of the project which requires deep knowledge of the same language. Better to find it out in advance. That doesn't necessary means that candidate will fail and not be hired - just maybe not for the project that requires the knowledge they don't have.
Having done plenty of interviews, it's surprising how many candidates list every technology they may have touched for the briefest of moments. For me, "grilling" someone on something like a programming language is about determining if they've _really_ used it or not.
If a candidate lists multiple languages on their resume, I'll often ask them to do a compare and contrast -- what do they think are the strengths and weaknesses of the languages? What did you use language X for? Do you think language Y would have been better/worse/same to attack the same problem?
I'm not looking to trip them up, just find out if their resume is an accurate reflection of their experience.
"I used it so I wouldn't need to rewrite the 300 proprietary internal libraries and dependencies our company also paid to write and maintain in that language" is probably a valid answer for many BigCo employees.
I just had an interview with MS, they seem to have a far better approach these days.
I was surprised that they approached me because the team works primarily in C# and Go, and I've been doing JVM languages mainly, and only a small amount of Go, but the interviewer emphasised that they want people who can learn and enjoy learning.
They then asked me to choose a language I know well and describe a strength and weakness of it.
We used to have a very basic C whiteboard test for junior devs. Super simple "find the bugs" test. The best technical performance I ever saw was a guy that walked up to the board, swiped with the marker to mark the bugs like he was swatting flies (found every bug correctly). He finished the test in maybe 10 seconds, where typical was five minutes or more. He sat down in a huff. I didn't know we had an asshole test until that moment. I thanked him for coming in and showed him out. I'm so glad I never had to work with him.
This vaguely reminds me of somebody I know who's also pretty smart, but socially extremely odd to the point of being rude/insensitive. Though I'm pretty sure the person I know is on the spectrum and likely doesn't realize/mean it.
