this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023
56 points (92.4% liked)
Programming
17313 readers
258 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm sure individual interviewers have their own styles, but yeah I'm with you here. Few things are more frustrating for me during an interview than wasting 30 minutes going in circles on something because the candidate isn't being honest with me.
Our role (low level software) is going to be full of things they haven't seen before. I would rather have a candidate who can quickly identify that they don't understand something, and likewise quickly try to fill that gap so they can move on to the next thing, than have someone try to bluff their way through.
I understand that there's a level of "fake it til you make it" during interviews, but the goal of the interviewer is to get as much signal on you as a candidate as possible. Admitting you don't know something may not feel good, but then it gives the interviewer the opportunity to test you on different things that could really highlight your skills. For example, we ask questions on multithreading during our panel. If you don't know how a semaphore works, and you tell me that upfront, that gives me the opportunity to explain the concept to you and see what your process is like working through new information.