I haven't said anything about use of AI during the interview. However, the difference between using an AI tool like Claude or Cursor to help you reason about and develop a solution to a problem, and using something like ParakeetAI to listen to your call and provide you a script to speak is huge - it completely removes the thinking from the interaction. You can tell by how the candidate doesn't pause to contemplate the question, and from the overly polished answers delivered.
Since I'm the hiring manager, I'm looking for someone who is being genuine in the interview, and the AI cheaterware is a bridge too far, especially since it wasn't intended to be deeply technical - why cheat on a behavioral screen? You AI'd your way into the reject pile and made fool of yourself in the process.
I only end up with absurd questions if I am nearly positive the candidate is using one of these tools. I was proven right too - I asked a candidate if he'd ever chopped down a tree with an axe. He said no immediately, and then proceeded to give me a solid woodsmans explanation for how to do just that. I stand by what I did.
Just to clarify - i should have said this originally - it's not about the use of Cursor or Claude at all. I mean that they were using something that was listening to the conversation, and then automatically spitting out something for the candidate to say. I'm all for the tools and yes, it's an expectation that you will be not just familiar with, but a power user of tools like Cursor and Claude. I object only to what seems like "cheatware" for the whole process of the interview.
Candidates are also not themselves in these scenarios - IRL interviews show that immediately.
"everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth" -mike tyson
If you're not doing some work to understand how your software works in real life, you're just a theoretician, and you're going to get punched in the (virtual) mouth when your naive assumptions fail to materialize in the random world of production.
Do the ops work, just like Ops/SRE cleans up the shit-stew you call your software when it breaks in prod. Or stop writing bugs. You pick.
1. Being informed about what the top level company goals are as well as department context and goals. If you can't draw a straight-ish line between what you're working on and those goals, it's probably not aligned. Make sure you have a defined and prioritized backlog of projects so that when you have the time/resources, you can easily pluck the next one off of the stack.
2. Repeating myself over and over and over (typically ~7 times) to get a message out to the team/org. Even smart people act dumb sometimes, and don't listen/read when they should. It feels like babysitting, sometimes.
3. Books, blogs, industry friends, and some mentors. I have found it difficult to make external mentor friends, but still working on it.
4. It's never about the tools. Jira sucks, slack sucks, and so do most tools. Make sure you keep your workflow simple and make it transparent, however you do it, so that not only can YOU see what's going on, you can confidently share it with others (see? THIS is why your feature isnt being worked on right now, etc.)
I have tried this with limited success. Sometimes people respect the time you have blocked, most times not. So I end up feeling double booked and frustrated that my attempts to get time to do "real work" are thwarted.
Several times. The first two times were in the span of two years - 2001 and 2003, in the last gasps of the dot-com bust in the Bay Area. Both were due to the companies either going out of business or extreme restructuring to avoid going out of business. I was a middle manager both times. The hardest part was not having saved enough money during the good times, which is a lesson I've never forgotten.
The third time was later in my career and was something of a relief, even if I didn't realize it at the time. I had been in an executive leadership role, overworked, stressed out, and had become ineffective at executing because of the pressure and stress. Being let go didn't hurt as bad as it could have because I had learned the lesson of saving and investing from my previous layoffs, and even though it wasn't a stress-free period, I was able to take about 6 months to decompress, look for work and enjoy the time with my family.
Overall, I'm grateful for the lessons in each of the occasions I was let go. Two key lessons for me were: Save money while the times are good, and work to live, not the other way around. I'm a more balanced person as a result, and I've "grown up" in ways I don't think I would have without these episodes.
Could be I'm wrong. I look at this across all locations (including where I am, in the middle of the country) and the majority of people I worked with that were putting in crazy hours were single white men. Once people settle down they have a way of self selecting out of the jobs with insane hours.
The expectations vary mostly depending on a few things, IMO:
1. Life stage of the company (startup vs. mature)
2. Role (rank-and-file engineer vs. leadership)
3. Your management
Location has had less to do with the number of hours worked than the items above.
Startups tend to demand more of their staff because it's an existential problem they're trying to solve - become profitable/acquired/public before you run out of money or someone squashes you. Expectations there will be >40 hours pretty much across the board, and will favor single, probably white men.
Mature companies can also demand more of your time, but typically they are easier places to find roles that will not demand much more than 40 hours a week.
With those things said, you could be working for a SOB that simply demands your presence to prove you're doing the most work possible, and in those cases you should decide whether you value your paycheck or your health/sanity. I've been there and choose health/sanity 100% of the time. Burn out just once and you'll know what I'm talking about.
Diving in on GTD and have thus far really been converted. Having a system - _any_ system, is critical. It became clear pretty quickly that my "system" was just me using my head and brute-forcing my way through things.
Thanks to everyone who took the time to add something to this thread. Lots of valuable stuff in here, and I've got some rearranging to do with my perspective, and how I think about my time and tasks. I'm sure I'll have more questions, but for now I've got work to do to get better at this.
Since I'm the hiring manager, I'm looking for someone who is being genuine in the interview, and the AI cheaterware is a bridge too far, especially since it wasn't intended to be deeply technical - why cheat on a behavioral screen? You AI'd your way into the reject pile and made fool of yourself in the process.