And these are the people who post on LinkedIn as if their understanding of esoteric Leetcode string DP problems is essential for scaling Amazon and Google.
They may not quite understand their development or deployment environment but their knowledge of writing segment tree as a single dimension array in 15 minute is somehow essential to scaling the internal CRUD app these people end up working on.
Now everyone being interviewed by this person has to know by heart or magically derive on spot how to find minimum steps to obtain maximum length palindrome subsequence of even length from a string consisting of lower case letters, because apparently it's the gist of all computer science knowledge a developer will need.
I wonder how much the culture of standardized testing has contributed to this pattern. The idea that it's somehow unfair to test relevant skills and knowledge because previous exposure comes down to simple chance. That for a test to be "objective" it should only ask about abstract matters no one would ever reasonably encounter. It strikes me as sort of essentialist.
It also seems sort of contradictory... if experience in the field is one of the most important criteria, why are they implicitly avoiding testing for that?
Many of these young CEOs are really brilliant folks. They deserve to be given a fairly free rein.
However, there's a big difference between brilliance, and good judgment.
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment.
When a CEO makes a mistake, there's usually only one strike, and you're out (we won't talk about Steve Jobs, though -that SOB had nine lives). When lower-level managers make mistakes, it's often recoverable.
Until recently, it was fairly common for corporations to be run by folks (usually men, but that's another issue) in their fifties.
These folks had no problems considering older folks on their merits (which often included price). If they discriminated against older folks, it was usually because they didn't want to pay for something. It wasn't really personal (but that doesn't make it any less reprehensible). Younger folks, on the other hand, bring in the younger generation's resentment against their elders, so it is personal.
Many folks think that only younger folks are creative. I'd not argue that youth doesn't have a great deal of creative energy; mostly because they haven't encountered limitations, imposed by things like the laws of physics.
Creativity, however, does not equal results. What SpaceX has done with reusable boosters, is awesome. I do not know the details, but I'll bet the team that developed it was not just a bunch of enthusiastic kids. I'll lay odds there's a lot of well-coiffed grey pompadours in that team.
IBM is in hot water, because they adopted a "cargo cult" mentality, that, if they hired enough younger folks (and got rid of their "olds"), they'd magically transform into a startup unicorn.
I don't think that strategy has actually worked out too well.
They may not quite understand their development or deployment environment but their knowledge of writing segment tree as a single dimension array in 15 minute is somehow essential to scaling the internal CRUD app these people end up working on.
Now everyone being interviewed by this person has to know by heart or magically derive on spot how to find minimum steps to obtain maximum length palindrome subsequence of even length from a string consisting of lower case letters, because apparently it's the gist of all computer science knowledge a developer will need.