They seem to be doing just fine without the consent of the governed, given voter turnout in the US.
I prefer to look through the lens of expected value. How can you vote in a way that maximizes the chance that your preferred policy outcomes will go through? "Don't vote for anyone who has supported it in any way" is nice in theory, but there are plenty of times when a vote any other way has lower expected value.
"Criminal Aliens Sexually Assault 70,000 American Women". You're saying you don't see ANY problem with this headline? The inference is that this is a giant problem that we should be addressing right now, that it's eclipsing all other issues, when in fact it isn't in the slightest. You're being wilfully obtuse if you don't see the subtext: "Be very afraid of criminal aliens, they're coming to hurt you and rape you."
Let's not dismiss what inaccuracy here can lead to: bigotry on false pretenses, violence against innocent immigrants, and blindly supporting wars against "the wrong kind of people."
[edit: Both the reactions you listed seem fine, depending on what you're looking for. But I wouldn't do this myself, anyway.]
I don't know the correct reaction, and don't do this when I'm interviewing. My point was that I could easily see a different side of this story, from the interviewer's perspective. Maybe the interviewer understood the OP's solution, and wanted them to explore a different angle.
We're lacking so much context here - what did the interviewer actually say? Was their tone gentle or aggressive? Were they flat-out ignoring the OP's answer, or acknowledging it while taking it through different use cases? We can't know, we weren't there.
I understand there are many places with poor interview practices, but I've seen enough devs come out of these types of interviews with wildly incorrect self-assessments that I no longer blindly trust these anecdotes. Unless they told you the exact reason you failed, you're speculating. And if you're an engineer that repeatedly gets turned down after these interviews at many different shops, you may not know what you don't know. Complaining about the interview process isn't a productive way to improve in those situations.
[note that my critique goes both ways: I have no way of knowing OP's skill, and their story could be completely accurate. however, I see this attitude a lot from overconfident junior devs, and that's to whom this rant applies.]
I ask because we interview lots of candidates who always jump straight to their favorite data structure. Given any algorithmic question, they'll immediately create an instance of their pet data structure (usually it's a HashMap), without specifying the types of keys or values. They can't explain why they're choosing this, and continually try to shoehorn the problem into it even when it makes no sense.
This interview doesn't sound nearly that bad to me. It sounds like you were discussing the advantages / tradeoffs for your choices, given various performance considerations. How do you know they considered you "wrong"? Maybe they were seeing how you reacted to being pushed.
the parts people are taking issue with are the ridiculous generalizations that young women aren't interested in serious relationships, etc. the parent comment's perspective comes off as judgemental and paternalistic, especially "I don't like one night stands and whatnot, and don't go to bars or clubs" okay? i have a hard time believing that no women in brazil want a stable relationship and a family.
it's also possible to go out to clubs, have one night stands, and want a stable relationship and family too!! imagine that.
> young women are not interested in serious relationships (instead they are interested in having fun, one-night stands, drinking, sex, etc...) because it gets in the way of having a career
im guessing you dont know any young women cause this is absurd
I get defensive when somebody dismisses my domain knowledge with a quick "why not just do this"? I'm not happy with myself when I react this way, but I do.
Therefore, when I'm in a position where I want to throw out a quick "can you just", I try to phrase it differently, because I know how frustrating that comment can be.
> Disagree 100%. Some of the best developers I've met understand very well how to separate their work. The stereotypical hacker that works all through the night on obscure problems tend to pidgenhole themselves and lose sight of the purpose of programming. They also tend to be the ones that burn out to epic proportions. It's a very unhealthy mindset to have, and to be encouraging others to have.
Yes.
I'd add: anyone smart enough to be considered an expert in any subject will eventually find other subjects to explore. I'd argue this helps them become a better developer, more than coding in their spare time ever would.