I hope this isn't unusual. I like to think I'm at least OK at software development, but my home network consists of a wifi router that I bought in late 2005 from PC World.
While I don’t believe advanced home networking is a good indicator of software engineering skills, I’d at least hope you occasionally check for firmware updates/vulnerabilities and replace it if the manufacturer stopped supporting it. Consumer routers (especially from that era) aren't known for good security (drive-by pharming etc).
Very few of the job functions we rely on in my space can be reasonably handled in 45 minutes. Resultantly, every interview question is indirect. We either reduce problems to what we hope are aggregate indicators (e.g. coding questions) with little to no certainty that we've correctly aggregated the skillset, use fast-search limit test questions that can spook candidates, or resort to fuzzy indicators that end up serving as pet questions.
For me, I check for things like accurate self assessment and subtle asshole cues, but largely indirectly, since everybody lies...
One response is, no you can’t. Technical interviews almost always devolve into proxy questions & those proxy questions rarely actually test for what the interviewer thinks they do.
“Tell me about your home network” is one of the odder proxy questions I’ve seen, having spent a lot of time looking at this problem.
What I’ve recommended for years is to replace technical interviews with take home work sample tests. Those also have their downsides and have recently gotten a bad name because of how poorly many people execute them, but replacing your interview process with them almost always leads to better results in my experience.
Well, you're quite right, but I disagree that it's a problem. Snark, sarcasm and underhanded jabs are absolutely valid rhetorical techniques; and, if you don't like them, there are plenty of good responses in kind, that will reflect on you far better than if simply tell on them to teacher.
In case you were having difficult guessing, I'm minded to agree with tptacek. (And not just because of my sibling comment, in which I admit that my home network is indistinguishable from that of a 90 year old technophobe who got his not-daft-but-still-technically-ignorant grandson to set it up for him.) Is the interviewee's home network, assuming they even have one, really relevant?
If they're going to be setting up a network for you, wouldn't you rather they had experience doing something significant on a professional basis, not just setting something up at home?
If they're going to be doing something else, what relevance does any of this have?
It was underhanded because you were giving a compliment but meant it to be an insult. Your reply here is willful ignorance and it’s done with malicious intent.
The fact that you are being defended shows that HN is a echo chamber that ultimately supports bullies like you even if they break the rules.
On the other it’s fine if you agree with tptacek’s intent but you were more clear and civil with your point. Tptacek’s comment comes off as pretentious and insulting, and doesn’t promote good faith discussion.
It's strange you're so familiar with the forum's norms and guidelines and would yet start a completely off-topic, pointless meta-subthread. Those are much worse than tptacek's fairly tame response. If you disagree with the comment, you can downvote or if you feel it's that terrible, you can flag it so it gets moderator attention. If those options aren't available yet for your account, you can just participate a little longer until they are.
