One counterargument is that many employees in finance are required to disclose outside business activity. From FINRA's perspective, getting paid to do an interview would be covered since it is remuneration that could be a conflict of interest with the current employer.
I.e., the employee would have to let his employer know that he got paid to interview somewhere else! Failure to disclose would result in disciplinary action from regulators, possibly leading to a suspension from the industry.
I think the whole idea is idiotic, but this particular point doesn't seem like it would be the blocker. We already have employment contracts which state hours to be worked and similar mundane details, this wouldn't be any different. Such contract details would only be tested if someone tried to exploit a loophole, like showing up for a bunch of interviews to get money but with no intention of actually completing the tasks.
"....you can argue it's not actually work, as your labor does not produce anything of value"
I think if we follow that slippery slope, employers might as well not pay salaries if they felt you weren't terribly productive during a given pay period.
"you can just ignore it the same way most people ignore their noncompete clauses"
Again, I'd hate to find out that an employer has this attitude toward honoring contracts as you suggest workers do.
That is very clearly wage theft. Employee rights is not so clear cut, and when you really get down to it must be decided in favor of the employee. (Otherwise, e.g., an out of work engineer who can't take jobs due to a noncompete is put on unemployment, having the public socialize his previous employer's contract terms.)
Was just about to post this. While the day-to-day of my job is like at any tech company, because I work for a regulated employer, a company that says "We will pay you to interview for us" immediately makes me lose interest.
(Why don't I just decline the payment? Because nobody wants to pay me for one day of both answering and asking questions at the last step of the process, they want to pay me for a real actual coding task as part of initial screening. From the article: "Introducing a payment allowed us to ask for something challenging and lengthy, while also respecting the candidates’ time." If I'm not getting paid, I have no interest in spending that much time up front.)
I donate to a bunch of charities. I wonder if it would be ok to donate my payment to those charities on my behalf. I wouldn't get the tax credit I'm assuming but i would feel perfectly happy to stop that donation for the year. A downside for the company is that you could also see those donations broken out, which might indicate they were dealing with a lot of churn. :(
I do really like the idea of having a company pay for my time. It feels really important to ask them to take it seriously. I've been frustrated with various companies over the years who didn't have their hiring teams in order and it was a miserable experience.
I think this is a stronger argument that we should have more entry-level contractor gigs available with a route toward full-time employment. Because they're easier to fire, contractor positions allow more risk-taking in the hiring process and this increases candidate diversity - true background diversity, not what you see with category-based quota systems. A company will be more likely to hire a person without a pedigree into a contractor role, and once hired they have an opportunity to showcase their aptitude.
Interviews are expensive in terms of employee time. Paying a candidate for their time as well wouldn't be the most expensive part of the process, but in general increasing the cost of an interview will serve to decrease the breadth of the process. Companies will probably start to become sensitive to people they perceive as profiting from the interview process and restrict access accordingly. I think this would be ultimately detrimental to the goal of scouting new talent.
Different strokes for different folks, but I immediately dismiss any job posting that mentions contract to hire. Even if it's a 2 week trial. I have a mortgage to pay and regular expenses, and given I've had secure full-time development work for over a decade, I would never jump from a secure job to a contract position where a company does not have to offer benefits or even the courtesy of actually firing me so I can collect unemployment. If a company wants me to have wizard of oz style interviews, sure, I'll jump those hoops until I have an offer from a company I like. But I'm not going to sit in financial limbo while a company decides if I'm worth keeping or not.
Of course for someone just starting in the industry, or comfortable with contract work, this might be fine. But I imagine many SWEs have no interest in contract to hire for similar reasons.
Well, sure. I wouldn't take contract work either at this point in my career. But on the other hand I don't really have to do technical interviews at all anymore. After a point everything is reputation and networking.
Contract work is important for people just breaking into the field.
I’m ambivalent. Sure, guess I’d like it as an industry practice. It would make my taxes very lengthy to do by having to deal with 40+ 1099 forms every year but for sufficient payment not a big deal.
I do worry this would raise the bar even further though on expectations because now they’re paying for time. They’d take even less chances on who they interview because it’s 2x as expensive as it used to be. And I don’t think it’d become a world of doing “practical” assessments - I think leetcode would still be very common.
The hirer is the one filing out the 1099, and interviewing 40+ candidates a year is easy. That said, you should only need to file a 1099 when the pay is $600+.
How's it going? I am still doing some work for them, though I've had to scale back my freelancing as things have improved substantially at my main role.
Every other year is probably more accurate these days. But is what it is.
Last search I had something like 6 in hand offers (a few more that would’ve transpired but they realized they were out of their depth). It takes quite a bit of time. You have to schedule significant time off or sick days to do it. It’s not something that happens in a couple weeks.
For me, I spent about a year studying(leetcode and system design), mock interviewing (30+), and interviewing. Spent about 3 months without an actual job and interviewing+studying. (Something like 25 interviews in a week at times - 3-4 onsites per week when not doing tech screens)
Got the offer I wanted in the end - isn’t exceptional offer but I don’t have exceptional names on my resume either. Make $400k/yr. It was either that or another high growth startup and I wasn’t finding any that were that appealing on comp+culture after interviewing.
> For me, I spent about a year studying(leetcode and system design), mock interviewing (30+), and interviewing. Spent about 3 months without an actual job and interviewing+studying. (Something like 25 interviews in a week at times - 3-4 onsites per week when not doing tech screens)
Ok so there is something terribly wrong with our industry.
SV is very particular about the type of employee it wants. It’s not like they really like independent thinkers here. They want someone who they can mold and will do the work exactly as they say. Leetcode stands as a good test for that.
I upvoted this, although I am not sure if it is quite true as you have put it. Venture capitalists are very much aware of the risk of lower-ranking SWEs failing to recognise dangers out of insufficiently critical obedience.
>Last search I had something like 6 in hand offers (a few more that would’ve transpired but they realized they were out of their depth).
>Make $400k/yr.
I would say this is just a case of someone taking on the process of getting a job as a full time job itself...which I think is appropriate. I've been in industry for 20+ years and have easily left well over a million dollars in lifetime comp on the table because I haven't really approached maximizing it as a primary objective.
I think it is completely appropriate for an individual to do this in their own self interest.
I think it’s wildly inappropriate that our industry rewards it though. Someone taking a year off to study the interview process itself shouldn’t be rewarded so much more highly than a year of real experience doing the actual job.
+100 to this. There is such a delta between interview skills (leetcoding, brushing up star formatting to suit target company values and leadership principles) and skills actually needed for a job that without mock interviews your success rates are significantly diminished. I know several folks who interview regularly just to not get rusty ... with interviewing! I blame commoditization of software engineering and plenty of NIH stack building!
You only have to do a 1099 if you get paid more than $600. Assuming $100/hr you'd need 7 hours for an interview to need a 1099. 40+ * 7 = 280+ hours of interviews to hit that level, which seems like an outlier to me.
Right on that payments is a challenge in implementing this. Companies need to pay candidates, who may be anywhere in the world, a small amount of money on a one-off basis without the hassle of paperwork.
Tremendous.com (where I work) does this.
Candidates can get payments, gift cards, or donate the money to charity.
(we've been paying candidates to take calls, do tech screens, and complete projects, and it's easily been worth the cost. at some point we'll do a blog post on the conversion rate differences)
Make the entire interview process take less than 5 hours. If you’re anxious about hiring a fake or someone who isn’t cutting it, get better at firing faster.
Only once have I seen an employer show a new employee the door within that “six month probation period” they talked about.
This is basically the ultimate form of paying people for an interview: the interview happens on the job for a while.
It also would help with an issue I’ve struggled with a lot: learning that the person is a jerk who doesn’t work well with others and has loud holy war opinions on minutiae.
A valid criticism of this approach is that it can be expensive and disruptive to turnover a position in three months.
This article is disappointingly shallow. Maybe it worked for Algora, but it doesn’t mean it would scale well across the industry. Then there’s the problem with undesirable secondary effects as other comments on this thread have mentioned.
I’ve done hiring before and the fact that the cost of considering a candidate is relatively low both in terms of cost and time, meant that I could consider candidates with non-traditional backgrounds. A resume and job application only tell you so much. If I was on the fence about someone it was easy to jump on a call for an hour with them to get more data. Sure the signal you can get from an hour long interview isn’t great, but it’s something.
If there was a higher cost associated with bringing a candidate in (more than the wage, I’d be worried about the paperwork involved), employers might start relying even more on signals like alma mater status, current employer pedigree etc. as first pass filter before bringing someone in.
Vastly misunderstood this from the title and I suspect a few others have as well.
This seems to be more about internships than interviews for a qualified professional (or whatever you want to call those candidates).
Just make unpaid internships illegal. If you do work for a company that a paid employee would normally do, then you should be compensated.
But not paying someone to run around and get you coffee is just completely nonsensical these days.
I'd laugh all the way out of the door, and my country has a 40% unemployment rate. I'm just not going to do work I don't get paid for, because it turns out living is expensive.
It's an interesting idea, but there are lots of problems this article doesn't address.
At most of the companies I've worked for, there is a bunch of up front ramp up before someone can complete even a simple task. You have to become familiar with a team's frameworks, the business context, and the structure of the code base. To do one real task then requires all that ramp up first (or else, you'd need to simplify it so it's not a real task).
How big a task? If you are interviewing new college grads, it might not matter, but people who already have industry experience either have to use a large chunk of vacation time or leave their current job if the task is non-trivial (taking, say, a sprint or two to do).
How much do you pay? Do you have a fixed bounty? Do you pay senior engineers more?
I get how you want to see someone do this for real, but I've already built something like this 20 times. If a company trying to recruit me asked me to build this, I could spend a few hours building it again, or I could just tell you about the times I did something like that (and the challenges I ran into), which would take 30 minutes.
I think it's great that people are trying this. But when I'm looking for jobs, this wouldn't influence me much. It might be a useful signal that they respect my time, but also could indicate a relatively mercenary culture.
From the hiring side, I'd also have concerns. At a previous company we paid for a lot of user testing subjects and there were some people who were trying to make a living out of it. They'd say absolutely anything up front to try to get in and get the money. And that was just for $30-$50. If we're talking $200-800, that's a lot of incentive for goofs to lie their way into an interview.
It's not about influencing anybody. It's about valuing people's time and paying them for their time. (this isn't corporate bullshit - I made the policy and that's why I made the policy).
> could indicate a relatively mercenary culture.
no idea what that even means
> that's a lot of incentive for goofs to lie their way into an interview.
I'm happy to report we've never let any "goofs" in through the process! But it might actually make us a little too selective.
> It's about valuing people's time and paying them for their time.
Those are two separate things. I think once can do the first without doing the second.
> no idea what that even means
I used to work for financial traders. Some people tend to treat everything as a commodity. That's not the kind of culture I want to work in.
> I'm happy to report we've never let any "goofs" in through the process! But it might actually make us a little too selective.
That's a real risk. For me a lot of the best hiring value comes from talking with people who don't fit the profile of a perfect employee. Some of the best people I've worked with are terrible interviewers, for example.
> I'm just explaining how we do it at our company?
Sure. I'm just explaining my reaction.
> This has become nonsensical.
You not understanding something is different than it being nonsensical. If you want to understand it, feel free to ask. If you don't, that's also fine. You don't have to understand and address every person's reaction to a comment you make on the internet.
> Those are two separate things. I think once can do the first without doing the second.
How? Because I for sure don't want to spend my time in a room with people I have never seen. The more you pay me, the higher my tolerance for bulls..., I don't care about anything else.
Consider going to doctor's offices. At one, you are usually seen right on time, and when you aren't, the receptionist lets you know how long the delay will be and sincerely apologizes. At the other doctor's office, they usually run late, never apologize, and when you ask how long it will be they give you an answer that is dismissive and uninformative.
The former respects your time. The second doesn't. Neither one pays you.
Do you pay for their time during an onsite interview or for a "take home"? How do you pay them? Do you make sure that this doesn't go against the rules of their current employment agreement? Is there any unpaid step before?
Alternatively, stop pretending this industry is a precious snowflake and conduct reasonable-duration, non-exploitative interviews like everyone else in the history of modern employment.
4 hours seems like a dream. The typical process seems to include:
20 minute chat with recruiter to introduce yourself
2 40 minute phone screen
5 hours of "onsite" interviews
1-2 15 minute recap chats with recruiter
Possible additional 40 minute interview with hiring manager to sell you on offer
It's almost impossible to do more than 3 of these in a week because companies all have times that don't work for them, and quite often have certain days of the week that they don't interview on.
It sounds like it was specifically for a real, non-trivial problem out of their backlog.
> the strongest candidates self-selected into this paid screening challenge
...
> to make developer interviews more valid & inclusive, introduce payments.
This still makes them exclusive. Someone with a full-time job who's busy with life could easily not care about $600--they're time-limited, not money limited.
They also provide little evidence supporting their motivation of hiring better engineers. I buy that better engineers are better for the company, they just didn't show that paid interviews select better engineers.
All that said, I agree that a long-ish, real-world problem is a great indicator of job performance. Paying people just means you're not taking advantage of them. The bigger problem is still around time.
If you’re gonna give out take home project, they should definitely be paid.
I tend to reject take home projects out of hand because they take up my time but not the company’s, unlike a phone interview. I need to know the company is serious and values my time.
Once you submit your take home what do you think happens? We do it at my current company and I usually spend around 45minutes to review a take home and submit (what I think is) useful feedback. And I have to do a few a week. Definitely takes some of the company's time.
Is it possible to pay someone in the US without getting their SSN/EIN? In other words, is there a way to do this without any major strings attached in either direction? I think that's the impediment for most orgs. By the time you've gotten to the interview process most companies have invested thousands of dollars per candidate in the process, adding on a $500-1k cash outlay per short-lister would be a rounding error.
Also, giving someone an actual backlog item would turn off most companies, but building a representative task where you vet performance against your current staff seems to be reasonable.
My company, tremendous.com, does this, including the tax form collection process if spend exceeds $600 / person. Our primary use case is user research incentives, but interview incentives is an analogous problem.
Basically no strings attached for both sides. We do complete a compliance review for businesses signing up for our site (given we're a payments company), but it's basically invisible at smaller volumes.
I would say it's more strings attached than handing a wad of cash to someone. A service aggregator like this certainly would reduce the headache for the hiring company but for the person being interviewed they still have to 'play ball' by entrusting some commercial entity with private information, no?
Kinda- for a $300 reward, for example, we only need an email address. So a recipient could just choose an Amazon.com gift card and apply it to their account, with only an email address provided.
That doesn't scale though. We hired 150 people in one engineering org over the past two years. Assuming we picked from a pool of 500 that'd be quarter to half million in gift cards.
Edit: because my point seemingly isn't clear. It's not about the money, its the fact that you can't hide a quarter of a million dollars in gift cards from the IRS. So for this process to scale, it has to be completely legal and above board.
In this situation, the hypothetical 500 were on the short list from tens of thousands of applications and some intermediate number of first round interviews. This was the 'short list' and we could have likely hired any one of them successfully.
We didn't do the 'hand them a project for a day' btw, we met them in person and had them go through a half day of panel interviews. Still something that ideally they would have been compensated for beyond food and our gratitude.
I'm on the side of paying candidates that go through any substantial interview effort, I just think that the regulatory details are going to select for folks that are less privacy-focused and are already established in the domestic economic infrastructure. I used to work in a bug bounty program where we paid out to researchers all over the world and the logistics of it was a pretty major issue (and resulted in a non-negligible portion of the submitters forfeiting their payment).
It's an extremely common practice so I don't mean to specifically go after you about it. I'm sorry if it came off that way.
I just really don't like it. I see it as exploiting people in a vulnerable position.
You're right that there are varying degrees. Certainly the worst - for me personally - was King Games in Sweden asking me to spend a week on making a candy crush clone after a short phone interview. I was in a position to refuse but I cannot imagine how many peoples' weeks they wasted.
You bring up good points about privacy and regulatory difficulties.
I just don’t know why you focused on the monetary total earlier. You’re already spending thousands of man hours of your own engineers’ time to interview them - the gift card cost is not that consequential in comparison.
Now add up the money you spent to interview those 500 people using the fully loaded per-hour cost of all the staff time. It'll be much larger than the cost of paying your interviewees.
Indeed, this might save money on net at a lot of companies. So many places are much more careful about spending cash than labor hours. I could imagine paying interview subjects could add a crispness and a focus to hiring processes that is often absent.
I'm not arguing against paying folks, I'm saying the paperwork overhead is substantial and will bias the process against those that don't want to cough up tax info for every company they apply to.
Below $600 to an individual, the IRS does not care. I have a small sites running Google ads that got me something like $200 last year. When I did my taxes, I couldn't find the 1099, so I wrote Google. Not only is it not legally necessary to send me one, they category refuse to provide the paperwork.
You are replying to me with your own tangential situation. Perhaps you shouldn't compensate all candidates, or compensate them less. I didn't say anything about why someone should be compensated, just how, if someone wanted to.
As an unrequested piece of advice, 150 hires to an engineering organization sounds like a gigantic waste of money. Perhaps you should give me the project and see if I can deliver it better for 1/150th of the price.
You lost me at 'the project'. My primary point is that the recommendations in the article don't scale well, nor do many of the recommendations I'm seeing in here. Paying folks under the table with gift cards is very low risk on the order of tens of candidates. It's not on the order of hundreds or thousands, particularly if you're operating in a market that is already highly regulated financially.
> Earlier this year we decided to hire summer interns. We wanted to know how well someone would perform on the job, so we gave our top candidates a real paid task from our backlog.
I often wonder the same thing. The only reasonable explanation I can come up with is that most (all? I don't think so but maybe) other industries can rely on trusted licenses, degrees, certificates, etc. Now I'll admit I never interviewed to be a lawyer, or a plumber or a telemarketer so maybe I don't have a clear picture of what other industries do.
I have talked to many friends in other industries. Some of them are heavily regulated—my wife’s a doctor and her interviews are basically just people spending a lot of money showing her around and begging her to work there.
Some of them aren’t heavily regulated. I have many friends in engineering disciplines that don’t require FE or PE exams, and they don’t need to deal with any of this nonsense.
I think our industry is just very prone to following trends for whatever reason. I would love it if we grew up a bit and introduced more regulation.
I agree to a point. You need to do a good job of screening beforehand, because there's no shortage of "developers" who are applying for jobs they aren't qualified for and seeing what sticks. I'm speaking from the perspective of a small company, where we have a shorter, flatter process, so it may make more sense when it's a longer, more extensive process.
I agree with the conclusion, and my startups always use a 1-2 week paid "microinternship" before final hiring decisions (unless I've worked with the person before).
That being said, this article makes no sense. The justification it gives sounds like it was autogenerated by a bad markov chain.
First it claims without justification that market salary equals "mean productivity", which already isn't true. But suppose that we believe that.
Then it says that there is a large productivity difference between good and bad engineers. Ok.
Finally it says (paraphrasing), "because good engineers are so much more productive, it's rational to pay them for interviewing." But that's just a restatement of the title of the article, not an argument.
For single day interviews, I think the opposite is true because of adverse selection. Good engineers aren't looking for 1 day of pay, they are looking for a job. The people who value your 1 day paid interview the most are people who are not looking for a job.
Pay them a reasonable hourly rate for the time this consumes. A good rule of thumb for any sort of short-term contract work is to take the annual salary and divide by 1000. Definitely don't pay them less than the long-term hourly rate, which is salary divided by 2000. So if your desired applicant pool is getting $200k, offer them $100-200/hour.
Last year I did a week-long work trial for a popular product startup. I will never do it again, reasons:
* The interview pressure of knowing you’re being assessed based on every interaction and piece of output, but for an entire week.
* A week isn’t enough time to truly assess what it’s like to work with someone…
* …yet, is long enough such that it’s only a viable option for people with capability to dedicate a week. Which basically means the unemployed, or those working at companies where they can take a week off at short notice.
* The tax situation can be complicated, which adds to the stress of it all.
My anxiety and stress levels have never been higher, and this was after being laid off and a subsequent 6 months of unemployment. If they hadn’t decided against hiring me (apparently my code and product mindset were great, but I didn’t work fast enough), I was ready to decline them on the basis of concluding that this approach to hiring (it was mandatory) was inhumane.
This may be legally impossible to do for someone who's already employed. You can make the claim that it makes your interview more "valid" (although, I still think that you would be testing for the wrong things and focusing on what 1 person can deliver alone is a bad metric), but not more "inclusive".
Why? Some companies have fairly predatory full time employment agreements that prevent you from having another job, forcing you to disclose any side hustle or contracting work. Sometimes they will claim to own everything you type on a keyboard.
I mean, I'm all for seeing this method work, but there is probably a reason the author mentions "interns". Were they able to apply this method with working professionals? Convenient how it's not mentioned.
The article makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims, but one that catches my eye is the idea that paying people to interview is more inclusive because it allows companies to issue challenges that are more representative of the actual job. But are there actually any data out there that support this claim?
This is a common canard. I can see how it might make some intuitive sense, but it appears to be utterly mistaken. When I brought up the idea at my current workplace, we ended up choosing not to pay candidates, because almost 100% of our female software engineers declared that they would not have started an interview process where they were being paid unless they were VERY certain they were qualified for the role.
Impostor syndrome is a thing. And if you're paying money, people will opt out because they don't want to feel like they're defrauding you. This viewpoint is strikingly common.
Great, it was done with interns with good results. Now, was this applied to working professionals? Why is the blog post not describing how it worked out? All you can say at this point is that it seemed to have helped to hire interns.
My initial thought is that paid interviews might shift the incentive of candidates from getting hired to doing more interviews regardless of interest in a given company. That might lead to a reduction in the interview -> hire rate, which then might increase the cost per hire even without considering the payout to the candidates for interviewing. This hypothesis should be testable. Though, the dynamics would probably be different if this policy became an industry standard.
I like the idea! This makes interviews a bit more paperwork (people need to sign NDAs and stuff) and it's surely not perfect [0], but there is probably no perfect approach and this is a lot better than most other forms of interviews. It also helps the Interviewee to find out whether he likes his daily work.
[0] One could, for example, argue that different people take a different amount of time to get started, but be similarly productive in the end.
Or, once companies start paying for interviews, they start outsourcing all of their work to interviewees, never hiring anyone. I don't think this would ever actually scale well, but if there's any way to exploit labor, corporations are going to figure out how.
I would much rather have a licensure process that covers the leetcoding part of most interviews rather than having to basically take the equivalent of that exam repeatedly and also for every position you apply to. It is a monumental waste of everyone’s time.
Software engineering is one of the most lucrative and high paying jobs out there and y’all want an extra few hundred for doing interviews?? Come on now.
I understand the point being made in the article but that amount of money just isn’t the best incentive
If it's on site and you have to commute e.g 1h (so 2)
and spend at least 1h on interview itself, then it's basically half of workday and e.g I, personally would have to take a day off to be able to participate.
I don't see it as not reasonable if somebody does not ACE every interview and has to attend a few of them.
And we're still pretty optimistic here, there are multi rounds interview.
I agree somewhat, but can see the flip side: in large companies where you may go through multiple rounds of interviews, spanning several days overall, you can be made to feel like a resource whose time is disposable.
When I reached the end of the "article" I thought that my browser had failed to load 2/3 of the page. The part where they would explain how they then started using this for professionals as opposed to interns, where they measured how it improved the quality of their hiring, where they would explain if there is any screening before getting people into the "paid for" program.
Hey, Zaf from Algora here. I'm sorry that you (and some other people in this thread) felt this way, but I totally get where you're coming from.
I wish we had more expertise and time on our hands to publish more thorough posts, but the truth is that we're just two young guys who are hacking up stuff in their home office, scrambling to get feedback on what we've been working on during the dwindling window of opportunity of the YC Build Sprint.
The "article" had no purpose other than to share our story, provide a food for thought and most importantly to learn from the community if what we're doing makes sense and if so how we can improve it.
I appreciate the DD you did and admit to feeling a little hoodwinked, but in fairness the CEO did do a Show HN [1] a couple days ago. I can imagine bootstrapping a startup, not getting any interest on a Show HN, and doing some blog posts to continue marketing. I think really the only thing off here is the lack of a kind of "Try Algora! We automate paid SWE interviews" section somewhere.
Not every startup idea needs to exist, and the world doesn't owe anyone attention to their startup.
I can also imagine bootstrapping a startup that squeezes juice out of a bag using powerful motors and running into widespread skepticism, because someone did it. The answer there isn't to write "Hand-squeezed juice from actual fruits is bad" articles, the answer is to find a better startup idea.
Yeah I mean, I'm bearish on their idea too; but I'd expect there to be some discussion of it vs. what's in this thread, which is mostly like "this post is thin, feels like just a tricky ad".
Or, idk, I'm open to the "huh, I suppose we now find ourselves on the slippery slope of 'everything is paid/advertiser content', FML" discussion too, which is happening. I guess I just thought there was a world where this company forgot the "by the way our company automates this" on the post, and we didn't need to jump to conclusions or w/e. But, maybe we do?
Eek yeah you're right sorry. Though I have read "signalfd is useless" and found it super informative. Lot of cobwebs up in the old attic apparently haha.
This is just an advertisement, unpaid. I had no idea who the company was until reading this, and also thought it was an incredibly thin post lacking any real justification for what it’s trying to do. It also has a clickbaity headline for the general consumer of HN. The Ads just keep evolving.
In this market multiple rounds of interviews are a competitive disadvantage, good devs don't stay on the market long enough to schedule that second on-site.
I.e., the employee would have to let his employer know that he got paid to interview somewhere else! Failure to disclose would result in disciplinary action from regulators, possibly leading to a suspension from the industry.