That tracks with expectations. Many larger companies don’t use external recruiters at all, I’d guess the threshold is probably around 10,000 employees - more or less - above that they’ll have it vertically integrated in-house.

I’ve worked with a 100,000 employee company where HR will pre-screen candidates at job fair type interviews, just to file them away against potential future openings. They won’t usually task actual staff with doing interviews for openings that aren’t funded, though sometimes it feels like they are doing that - sending so many bad-fit candidates that it takes us 8-10 to find one that might possibly be a net-positive asset to the team.

now I know a fair amount about EE

But, did you ever use a Smith’s chart to assist in antenna design / analysis?

I applied to a place that asked “experience in SquirrelScript” - that seemed like a personality test, I told the truth: 0. Surprisingly, when I got hired there, they were indeed one of the three places in the world using SquirrelScript at the time. Manager said that over half of applicants professed deep experience with SquirrelScript, but none ever had it for real. It wasn’t hard to learn.

Our entry test should have been dead simple for anyone applying to the position. Position: C++ computer graphics programmer, 1-2 years experience implementing technical graphics displays in C++ language. All resumes submitted, of course, claimed this and more. All interviewees, of course, professed great confidence in their abilities. 9/10 candidates, when presented with “the test” failed spectacularly. The ones who passed, generally, did it in less than 10 minutes - with a couple of interesting quirks which revealed their attention to and/or willingness to follow directions. The failures ranged from rage-quit and stomping out without a word, to hours of pleading for more time to work on it - which, in principle, we granted freely, but after 30 minutes if they didn’t have it they never got it.

I think 4 years experience gets the “Senior” title in our company now. I can understand having 3 years experience and being frustrated when you can see how much better you are at your job than your “more senior” middle managers, but… there are plenty of things that you continue to learn in your first 10-20 years of experience, and having diversity of experience brings even more value that’s rarely acknowledged in any ranking scales - actually the ranking scales usually reward stay-put loyalty over diverse in depth experience, and that’s just backwards in my experience. Although, I have also known plenty of “job hoppers” who got around from place to place every year or two and it was clear after working with them that was because they didn’t really contribute adequate value anywhere they went.

The quality of your recruiter matters quite a bit

Absolutely, but in a big company you don’t get to choose which recruiters you use - corporate just sends you candidates.

In 2006 I had a hard time finding C++ programmers in a university town. 9/10 who responded to the ads were just clueless. Of the remainder, we had a simple test - here’s sample code in an IDE that draws a straight line on the screen (you’ll be doing graphics programming in the role) - take that code and turn it into a program that draws a sine-wave in the same space… Everyone put computer graphic on their resume’s, expressed confidence in their ability to perform in the role, deep former experience, but 5/6 who passed the clueless test couldn’t manage that, given unlimited time and resources - the computer has internet access and a browser window open right there beside the IDE- USE IT!!!

Sadly, today we’d probably have to shut off the internet access aspect, or make the test much more difficult. Even AI can draw a sine wave.

That’s what’s happening, and it’s diminishing the quality of candidates - dramatically. Getting past HR isn’t a valuable skill except for getting hired.

You were at screening level #1. When I applied for work in Manhattan in 1988 it was like that: 9/10 jobs you applied to weren’t the actual employer, they were agents building a pool of candidates to be able to present to the actual employers at a moment’s notice if the employer should ever actually call asking for candidates.

Today I bet it’s rare to get hired without at least 3 screenings before you actually meet the people you might be working with.

now it takes 6 rounds of interviews for an entry level position at a startup.

I think it was 1996 vs 2002… 1996 we advertised in the Miami Herald for an engineer and got about a dozen applicants, 3 worth interviewing, none worth hiring and had to continue to search through personal networking to fill the role. 2002 we placed a nearly identical ad in the same classified section of the same paper, but by this time the Miami Herald was “online.” We even added the line “only local candidates will be considered.” Within the first week I had over 300 resumes on my desk, half of them from far afield - even overseas, so they were easy to sort… Still, plowing through the remainder, after about 50 quick scans I found one former employee of a company we did regular business with for over a decade, the question to his ex-manager was “if you had the chance, would you rehire him?” That yes shot down the rest of the applications dead - we just didn’t have the resources to even read all the applications, much less sort or answer or interview them.

I can only imagine the flood of candidates applying for every opening today. Take your resume, e-mail it to 30 recruiters, they each apply to 30 positions for you…

I like to understand what I work with, but I also like to keep my tools (like: Docker container images) as close to “stock” as possible, because that way they benefit the most from security testing and patching that others do, and make as little work for me as possible when I install upgrades.

Having said that, some tech (especially Bluetooth) is best “reinvented locally” IMO, simply because so much effort is being put into breaking Bluetooth security, and nobody really cares to break our products, but if we use Bluetooth we will be slapped with CVEs to patch constantly. So, yeah, use the Bluetooth supporting hardware, but roll your own reasonable security appropriate for your applications and get the hell out of the firehose of whack-a-mole security patches.

To be fair, when you’re in Gambukistan and you don’t even know what languages are spoken, a smart phone can bail you out and get you communicating basic needs much faster and better than waving your hands and speaking English LOUDLY AND S L O W L Y . A good human translator, you can trust, should be better - depending on their grasp of English, but there’s another point… who do you choose to pick your hotel for you? Google, or a local kid who spotted you from across the street and ran over to “help you out”? That’s a tossup, both are out to make a profit out of you, but which one is likely to hurt you more?

Always keep an open mind. I stuck around in my first job until the sad and pathetic end for everyone, and when I finally did start looking the economy was worse than it had been when the writing was first on the wall.

I’ve had too many arguments with management about letting them merge and I’m not letting that ruin my code base

I guess I’m lucky, before here I always had 100% control of the code I was responsible for. Here (last 12 years) we have a big team, but nobody merges to master/main without a review and screwups in the section of the repository I am primarily responsible for have been rare.

We have a new VP collecting metrics on everyone, including lines of code, number of merge requests, times per day using ai, days per week in the office vs at home

I have been getting actively recruited - six figures+ - for multiple openings right here in town (not a huge market here, either…) this may be the time…

I’ve always had problems with junior engineers (self included) going down bad paths, since before there was Google search - let alone AI.

So far ai overall creates more mess faster.

Maybe it is moving faster, maybe they do bother the senior engineers less often than they used to, but for throw-away proof of concept and similar stuff, the juniors+AI are getting better than the juniors without senior support used to be… Is that a good direction? No. When the seniors are over-tasked with “Priority 1” deadlines (nothing new) does this mean the juniors can get a little further on their own and some of them learn from their own mistakes? I think so.

Where I started, it was actually the case that the PhD senior engineers needed help from me fresh out of school - maybe that was a rare circumstance, but the shop was trying to use cutting edge stuff that I knew more about than the seniors. Basically, everything in 1991 was cutting edge and it made the difference between getting something that worked or having nothing if you didn’t use it. My mentor was expert in another field, so we were complimentary that way.

My company (now) wants metrics on a lot of things, but they also understand how meaningless those metrics can be.

I have to spend more time helping the junior guys out of the holes dug by ai, making it net negative

https://clip.cafe/monsters-inc-2001/all-right-mr-bile-it/

Shame. There was a time that people dug out of their own messes, I think you learn more, faster that way. Still, I agree - since 2005 I have spend a lot of time taking piles of Matlab, Fortran, Python that have been developed over years to reach critical mass - add anything else to them and they’ll go BOOM - and translating those into commercially salable / maintainable / extensible Qt/C++ apps, and I don’t think I ever had one “mentee” through that process who was learning how to follow in my footsteps, the organizations were always just interested in having one thing they could sell, not really a team that could build more like it in the future.

it’s just another tool.

Yep.

If you had to answer how much time autocomplete saved you, could you provide any sort of meaningful answer?

Speaking of meaningless metrics, how many people ask you for Lines Of Code counts, even today?___

Gnome is a good example of something that creates too much of a dependency

Agreed, I was never happy with GNOME, and starting about 5 years back I have been migrating my systems, personal and professional, off of it. That’s the nature of FOSS, no contracts to negotiate, make the choices that make sense for your use cases and execute them.

Does Gnome have too much dependency on Gnome: yes or no?

Absolutely. If you don’t mind using Gnome exactly as Gnome wants you to - this year - then it’s usually a pretty refined desktop experience, but if I wanted to be told what to like, how to like it, and to shut up and be happy, I’d use a Mac.

I prefer XFCE for its modularity… don’t want a launcher bar? Don’t run the launcher; nothing else misses it when it’s gone.

Mess around with Gnome too much and it becomes a nightmare mess of dependencies.

Like search engines, and libraries…

LOL sure

I’m not talking about the ones that get hired in your 'leet shop, I’m talking about the whole damn crop that’s just graduated.

AI tools are actually improving at a rate faster than most junior engineers I have worked with, and about 30% of junior engineers I have worked with never really “graduated” to a level that I would trust them to do anything independently, even after 5 years in the job. Those engineers “find their niche” doing something other than engineering with their engineering job titles, and that’s great, but don’t ever trust them to build you a bridge or whatever it is they seem to have been hired to do.

Now, as for AI, it’s currently as good or “better” than about 40% of brand-new fresh from the BS program software engineers I have worked with. A year ago that number probably would have been 20%. So far it’s improving relatively quickly. The question is: will it plateau, or will it improve exponentially?

Many things in tech seem to have an exponential improvement phase, followed by a plateau. CPU clock speed is a good example of that. Storage density/cost is one that doesn’t seem to have hit a plateau yet. Software quality/power is much harder to gauge, but it definitely is still growing more powerful / capable even as it struggles with bloat and vulnerabilities.

The question I have is: will AI continue to write “human compatible” software, or is it going to start writing code that only AI understands, but people rely on anyway? After all, the code that humans write is incomprehensible to 90%+ of the humans that use it.

I have limited AI experience, but so far that’s what it means to me as well: helpful in very limited circumstances.

Mostly, I find it useful for “speaking new languages” - if I try to use AI to “help” with the stuff I have been doing daily for the past 20 years? Yeah, it’s just slowing me down.