On the other hand, I have great difficulty following who speaks what during an online meeting. I think that most people speech arent clearly transmitted, well as a justification looking the live caption, it also contains a lot of mistake

I use live captions for this a lot and find that it's pretty accurate. It's helpful if someone says something that I don't catch and I can just scroll up the captions to make sure I understand.

Also helps if someone tries to interrupts and the live caption can notate who was the breaker so I can call on them without a dumb-sounding "uh who was that?"

When I was in college I found out that I have better reading experience reading LaTeX typsetted books. That's why I prefer to read Springer published reference books rather than class recommended books.

From reading your response it suggest me the riddridiculousness of the System Design interviews. Are folks are supposed to design a planetary scale system in <1 hours?

> From reading your response it suggest me the riddridiculousness of the System Design interviews. Are folks are supposed to design a planetary scale system in <1 hours?

No, they are expected to be presented with a set of requirements and present a solution that loosely meets them. That is used as a backdrop to ask technical questions and see how a person collaborates.

Yes, I would expect people to be able to discuss all of this and more, with trade-offs, in 1 hour. I'm not expecting any code, I'm only expecting a box diagram at best, and it won't be a finished design, but the whole point of system design is being able to come up with designs to meet exactly this sort of thing.

The interviewer was clearly annoyed at my questions, it was not that I didn't discuss the right things, it was that I asked too much and drew too little.

System design questions are already ridiculous. Seems that you need to follow 100% of the script they already had in mind fluently and smoothly.

They aren't meant to be but this will definitely force that.

In the past I have generally just had a list of dimensions to help the candidate explore, like separation of concerns, scalability on different system dimensions (concurrent txns, storage, memory, etc), analogies to existing systems/patterns, etc.

I usually have never had a script, merely a problem with a fairly generous solution space and a list of increasingly more difficult to satisfy requirements in order to pressure even the best candidates just a little.

HR has for the last decade tried to completely ignore that and instead try quantify candidates "goodness" with scores, scripts and other bullshit. This has had the rather obvious outcome in missing really good folks that didn't fit into their box and hiring utter trash that gamed their stupid metrics. They keep telling me this is "industry standard" and "how Google does it", but only the latter of that is actually true, the former was forced for no reason whatsover. They conveniently leave out that the reason Google did this for so long is they completely over-indexed on hiring fresh graduates with no experience, little to no intuition or real world knowledge and as such needed to entirely focus on IQ-test-esque questions to just try filter for the top X% of otherwise indistinguishable candidates. None of which is relevant for small teams hiring 10yr+ industry seniors with relevant domain expertise.

Interviews are meant to be about working out if someone will be successful on your team, that means determining if they have the technical chops, a decent enough communication style and enough experience/intuition to work in unfamiliar problem spaces effectively.

Really all you need is the vibe check, a good collaborative systems design exercise helps explore that vibe and quickly separates the pretenders from people with the required knowledge and intuition.

Nope some Govt like India would veto that.

They already have auto factories here, though no major passenger car factory.

There's also strong inferiority complex. When you read and find out the output your motivation to at least paraphrase the prompt output instantly dive because it looks so good and proper whereas your original writing looks so dumb in comparison

> "My favorite interview question, because we've interviewed quite a few of these folks, is something to the effect of 'How fat is Kim Jong Un?

I wont be surprised if the list of "must-denounce" will be growing and in the future there'd be a litany of "mock the enemy" for every interview.

> How fat is Kim Jong Un

Ha if I got asked that during an interview, I'd think either I went to the wrong interview or the interview is a red flag.

In crypto has become a known joke to ask that before hiring bc NK state actors really are focsuesd on it and hacking companies etc.

> The candidate used remote colocated Mac desktops but interacted with other components through a VPN, a setup commonly deployed to hide location and network activity.

How can Kraken found this out based only on Videocall?

OOT, How'd you distinguish between Oklahoma, Oregon and Ohio State University when you see the word OSU?

OSU.edu is Ohio, all others have their own domains. This is also why Michigan State is the one true MSU, etc. (Being a Michigander, it pains me to give Ohio any credit for anything, but that goes to show how much I think this is a sensible way to distinguish them.)