I felt like the premise of the book was a bit misleading. I expected to read more about the qualities, indicators, and strategies you could employ during a recession to continue making money.

I think the book was more focused on providing uber-tactical advice about evaluating your situation and preparing for the worst. If you’re worried about losing your job and are low on capital, this is probably the book for you.

All in all, a bit too much on keeping your job. A bit too much preaching. I don’t understand how recessions work in more depth than I did before.

There are easily available metrics for predicting incoming recessions, including:

Recessions are officially declared by the 

On a personal level, dealing with a recession is about being prepared:

Having readily available work connections (think layoffs, finding a new job).

Avoiding speculative investments, maintaining sizable cash funds.

Picking industries that are evergreen, not beholden to market conditions.

The rest of the book tries to provide tactical advice for various life situations: student, factory worker, tech professionals. It’s a bit vague, but in essence: try to keep your job, prepare for the worst, and evaluate your options.

For people with existing capital, the general advice is:

After a depression in prices, it’s a good time to buy real estate, start a business, or invest in stocks (funds, not individual companies).

If you fall in the boat of unemployment, your opportunity cost to do various things is significantly lowered. It’s a good time to go back to school, or travel, and so on.

We’re in a unique situation now (2022), as most recessions typically don’t coincide with high inflation. Recessions and inflation are typically thought to be substitute forces, but they currently coexist.

That being said, we’re not currently in a recession, but we’re already starting to see recession-like conditions as of early 2022.

we may enter one officially by the end of 2022

. The Federal Reserve will likely continue increasing interest rates through 2023 to combat inflation.

Recession Proof

“Make the most of your regrets; never smother your sorrow, but tend and cherish it till it comes to have a separate and integral interest. To regret deeply is to live afresh.” Henry David Thoreau

Imagine you’re young again. You dread school, and your parents are nagging you.

“Don’t forget to do your homework.”

Like most kids, you accept this and move on with your life. As you get older, your perspective becomes less focused on the big picture and more on the present. This sounds good in theory (present moment), but you are being suckered in. Your perspective on life narrows every time you attach importance to today’s tasks.

I pose the inevitable scenario: you get a bit wrinkly. You know you’ve been getting older and older, but you kind of push it to the back of your head. It’s painful to think about.

As your last days roll by, you have this weird but familiar feeling, almost as if you forgot to do something. Did you leave the stove on? Is your final will and testament in order?

But as your last breaths escape, you remember what you forgot: to do the things you set out to do as a kid.

“I see it all perfectly; there are two possible situations - one can either do this or that. My honest opinion and my friendly advice is this: do it or do not do it - you will regret both.” Soren Kierkegaard

In your mind’s eye, you had forgotten about the things you dreamt of when you were younger. By the same token, your young mind thought of the world as having “endless time”.

Your childhood dreams were conceived in a childhood state, with many idle hours and adults telling you that you have “all the time in the world”.

Throughout your adult life, people don’t tell you this anymore, but you have still internalized it.

It’s sad the way it plays out for people who don’t snap out of it. The reality is: you don’t have that much time to chase these dreams. Especially if you have a full-time job, marital obligations, children, and so on.

The truth is, it doesn’t have to be this way. The outcome of your life is determined by small decisions, and these decisions have an outsized compound effect.

If you already know what you want to do, escaping this unfulfilling life-loop is simple.

Snap out of it. This means taking a step back and challenging everything that you do on a daily basis. Write down everything you do (or sometimes do) on a daily basis. You may be surprised to see how much of it is worthless and unfulfilling.

Think like a child. When you were a kid, uninhibited by society at large, you may remember feeling like you could do anything. I’m not suggesting you identify your childhood desires as your adult passions (eg: become an astronaut). You, like most adults, have likely matured and your interests have changed. But you can still apply this childlike thinking process to your current interests. Imagine you can do anything. What would you do?

Set achievable milestone goals. Yadda-yadda, you’ve heard this all before, but it’s because it’s true. The reason why it’s important to “snap out of it” before this step, is that you may realize you have more time than you think. Time is your best asset, and a lot of the things you thought were unachievable due to time are no longer constrained by it. Want to write a novel? What’s actually stopping you from doing so? Seed capital and a manager? Only joking.

Make small decisions. When you take a step back, it may feel like you are unraveling. You may be faced with the pain of wasting time, but just know that this time wasn’t wasted. Everything in your life has led up to this moment. By making small but solid decisions, you gradually build yourself up, and set yourself up for a more fulfilling life. Optimize for the long-term here. Even better, optimize for your goals and passions.

I said simple, not easy. These are just tips. The reality is that you will always have regrets. You may regret what didn’t work out, but it doesn’t compare to the regret of not trying. That is the worst regret. I implore you, try.

Don't Forget

movie. There are scenes that surprised me in a way that view films do, and not really in a good way. That being said, you can't fault any of these scenes for lack of creativity.

We open the movie with a lead actress who is completely unrecognizable (and honestly, quite grotesque). We'll figure out why later in the film, but it's a classic case of "ugly duckling".

Early on, it’s clear that the main character, Tina, has supernatural powers of some sort. She can smell things on people: alcohol, narcotics, feelings, and fear. Her job as a port authority agent is a perfect fit for her skillset, but she’s not content with her life.

Her home, a far commute from her workplace, is surrounded by lush nature. This idyllic setting is where most of the film takes place. She lives with her lazing, dog-obsessed boyfriend Roland in a small home. The setting is gorgeous and the masterful cinematography of the film enhances this beauty, but her home-life is far from beautiful.

Roland, her boyfriend is leech-like, taking advantage of her home (and her vulnerability). Her neighbors are friendly, but the weekly trip to the grocery store proves troublesome. People are afraid of her, and the ones that tolerate her need something that she has.

She’s accepted this state of affairs for better or worse, presumably because she believes her appearance precludes her from better. Finding solace in nature, she meets and is able to commune with different creatures: animals with the same extreme set of senses she has acquired herself. The humans around her have all but abandoned her.

Eventually, in comes Vore, a kindred spirit. Tina's father explained her appearance away as a genetic defect, and Vore seems to have something similar. Every time Vore is stopped at the port authority, she smells something on him. On each search, nothing is found.

Later on, Tina and Vore start to see each other. They are both ugly ducklings, marginally tolerated by society, happy to find each other.

Of course, like any story, there is conflict. Vore may not be who he seems to be, Roland continues to take advantage of her, Tina's father may be harboring secrets, and events unfold throughout the movie that derail the progress Tina has made.

Ultimately, this is a film about finding your home. 

Finding your home in places, in people, and in activities. Tina’s journey throughout the film is one of self-discovery, of shedding her inauthentic self.

The situations that unfold force Tina to consider her humanity and her legacy: what it means to have one, how to acquire one, and what happens if you lose yours.

It’s uncomfortable, but it’s worth a watch.

Border

Happiness. The ever-elusive and fleeting feeling. It’s often characterized as something permanent, but I think what people are really trying to describe is peace. A sense of contentment.

This gets mentioned a lot: I’m so happy, I love my new job, I’m so much better off doing x. But I always wonder: what does happiness mean? Even if I can define happiness, are these people really experiencing it? Am I really experiencing it?

The inverse is true as well. When people gripe about their work situation, how much of it is really about work? The people that proclaim happiness one day are often the same that gripe the next.

Let’s zoom out to the career level. We spend the majority of our life working, quite literally. The average person spends 

In my own case, my current job is a significant net positive: I feel excited and content with my job and work most of the time. Not all of the time, but most. I still experience anxiety over problems and deadlines, but this is a fact of life — no matter your job.

People operate on planes of acceptance. First, they look for security in a job. If they can just get a high-paying job and secure their financial future, they will be content.

Let’s assume they secure that job. Once they’ve had a taste of security for a few months, they’ll start to feel bored. They may wonder what’s happening and seek to find a solution. At this stage, people react in different ways: consuming more, learning more, working more, worrying more. Eventually, most people accept this uneasy feeling and live with it.

But, as they stay in the job for longer, they may start to get greedy. They want more, and they find ways to rationalize the decisions that they are yet to make (asking for a raise, leaving, finding a new job). This isn’t wrong, it’s natural, and it’s why companies have excellent retention programs.

You may find fulfillment in your work, but it’s doubtful you’ll find it in your bank account.

Jeff Bezos talks about “work-life harmony”

, and I honestly think this is the best perspective I’ve found yet. There are two polar ends of the spectrum: 

that insist on working yourself into the ground, and “work-life balance” addicted coasters that provide bare minimum value to the companies that they are employed by.

There’s nothing wrong with either, but both lend themselves to imbalance. In the first, you may be so consumed that you cannot have a life outside of work. In the second, you may have so much time on your hands that you get bored.

The people who abhor laziness often burn themselves out until they can’t work anymore. The people who abhor working often lack real interests outside of work, defeating the entire purpose of their “balance”. These are anecdotal examples that would be easy to refute, but this is what I’ve observed in my professional relationships.

If you can find a balance between the two, you give yourself the opportunity to find fulfillment in both. A teammate said to me once: “the more senior you get, the more people will disrupt you, and something has to give”. Will it be your health, will it be your time, will it be your fulfillment, or will it be your scope? These are all hard questions to answer, and the examples above are not absolutes. Your priorities will determine where you fall on this spectrum. To find balance, you need to be as honest as possible about your priorities.

Have you ever regretted turning down a job? Thought the grass could be greener elsewhere? Recently in my life, I’ve been lucky enough to have the opportunity to turn down very compelling job offers. I get the occasional tinge of FOMO for some of these cases, and I’ve made a conscious effort to avoid being directed by this feeling.

I try to avoid “rationalizing” my current situation in reference to things I might feel were missed opportunities. Comparisons are ugly.

I’ve done a lot of this in the past, but recently, I realized something. Never in my thought process did I think about happiness. I also didn’t think about team fit, my interest in the mission of any of the companies, or anything else that would contribute to day-to-day contentment.

Would I have been happier? Who knows. Maybe this is just a drawn-out rationalization.

We know you can’t really optimize in hindsight, but even if you could: are you optimizing for what you really want?

When you reach the end of your life, will you feel that much better about all the extra dollars you made?

It’s always about money. My grant could have been [x], my total compensation could have been [y], and my life would have been [z] dollars better (after tax, of course). In my humble opinion, this is a poor and unexciting way to see life, but it’s a trap many fall into and have to claw their way back out of.

The amount of conversations I had in San Francisco about salary were absolutely nauseating. Part of the reason I moved away was to avoid these kinds of attitudes. It’s not wrong to talk about money with your peers, but it’s inappropriate when it becomes a topic for small talk.

Money is great and you’ll make plenty regardless. You can buy all of the things you might want (except for a private jet), but you can’t really buy back your time. If you hate what you do anyways, you might as well start a company and profit a bit more from it.

Trading time for money is stupid if you don’t enjoy the time you trade.

Disjoint Thoughts On Work

. Somehow, in the future, pain has been eliminated. As a result, people derive all sorts of pleasure from the act of surgery. Cosmetic surgery, organ transplants, et cetera.

From the director of The Fly, Jason X, and many more, we get a movie that is a bit too on the nose. I would like to call it satire, which it clearly attempts to be, but I felt like it was spelled out for me before I could make my own decision.

The cinematography was great, the soundtrack was decent albeit repetitive, and the concept itself was extremely creative. I believed the world Cronenberg created was real and terrible to be a part of.

Viggo Mortenson and Lea Seydoux felt like victims of bad writing to me. There were funny moments, highlighted by Kristen Stewart’s performance as “Temlin”. But these moments were ruined by the numerous philosophical monologues given by characters. I’m not sure if Cronenberg (the director) doubted his audience’s intelligence, or if this was a ploy to add to the satirical elements of the film. If it was the latter, it made an already “meta” movie a bit tiring.

The writing felt forced, the movie was graphic, but it didn’t really keep my attention. I wasn’t sure where the plot was headed, and I didn’t walk out with any new insights or interesting thoughts. I walked out of the movie glad to be done and over with it.

Cronenberg’s first film with the same name

. That being said, his film from 1970 carries a completely different plot and is classified as a “comedy”, although the disturbing synopsis didn’t quite convince me.

some viewers walked out during the Cannes screening

. I’m not sure why they did so, but if I had to guess: it wasn’t the shock factor, it was boredom.

I don’t feel like it’s my place to dissuade others from seeing a movie, and I’m glad that movies like this are produced, but I’m not sure who this movie was made for. Probably Cronenberg.

Crimes Of The Future

The film opens on the main character, a gorgeous backdrop, and a bit of casual smoking. Julie looks troubled and perhaps a bit bored. Does she regret something, or someone?

It’s clear that she feels out of place. She’s at a party with a partner more successful than her, surrounded by high-achieving individuals, yet she’s still trying to figure herself out. She dreads the question “what do you do for work.” Her qualms about life are seen as indecision, something to be avoided.

Later on, she might react to this image of indecision that others project on her, but Joachim Trier waits to show us. Can she stick with a major? Can she hold a steady job? Will she get married, or flake again? Will she want kids, or won’t she? 

Silent judgements from others are common in this film, not too different from real life. Death by a thousand cuts. The movie assumes the audience is intelligent and leaves it up to the viewer to discern what is right and wrong, and how reliable the character's judgements are.

A huge part of what makes this movie special is context. We aren’t given every detail about Julie’s experience up to this point, but the opening sequence is excellent. We get to see the evolution of Julie from the beginning of college to now: about to turn thirty, working at a bookstore, in a healthy relationship. We aren’t left in the dark on her life prior to our viewing. The result is that Julie is relatable, not mysterious. She’s just like the viewer, interacting with the world and wrestling with the results.

Very early on, the viewer can tell that Julie is on the eve of change. Discomfort tends to propel people into action, but sometimes people regret their actions. This virtuous cycle of regret, action, and more regret hits home in the film, but no solution is provided.

Joachim Trier’s films aren’t prescriptive. They don’t provide neat endings that tie up every loose end, they give reality. Despite this, I leave every one of these films feeling more excited about life than I was when I walked in.

In terms of “technical review”, the entire film is stunning. The cinematography is masterful, the situations are realistic, the writing (even after being translated into English) is fantastic. The backdrop of Oslo and surrounding destinations in the film are beautiful, the set design is fantastic, and the overall aesthetics of the film enhance it quite a bit.

The soundtrack is excellent: Antonio Carlos Jobim, Harry Nilsson, Christopher Cross, Todd Rundgren, and it continues. Trier has good taste.

The narration is excellent and adds a lot to the film. In some films, it can break your immersion in a story, but this is an example of third-person narration done right.

Back to the meat of the film. Throughout the film, Julie’s doubts about her own path are palpable, and her fear of follow-through permeates the film’s atmosphere. This is a film about discovery, but also about self-doubt.

Sometimes, the scenes are a bit too relatable. It feels as though Joachim Trier or his co-writer Eskil Vogt experienced some of these scenes firsthand, despite writing from the female perspective. The film is effortlessly laced with hilarious diversions, a welcome respite from some of the heavy portions. If you watch it, expect wild reindeer, mushroom trips, and esoteric rituals.

In the later chapters (kapitler), a quantum shift occurs and the viewer’s expectations of the film’s central conflict are subverted. What I expected to see in the last forty minutes of the film were nowhere near close to what actually occurred.

Like many of Trier’s films, the movie is bittersweet but life-affirming. I think the ending left me satisfied while avoiding the trope of “happily ever after”. There were still loose ends, and there was still ambiguity abound.

A good film sticks with you, a great film induces you to question how you spend your time and your life. After watching this film, I did the latter.

Worst Person In The World

I moved to San Francisco in 2019 in the pre-COVID era, into a “hacker house”, and lived with 40 other people. Yes, 40 other people, it was a lot. But it was also a formative experience for myself and my housemates, many of whom I am still friends with today.

 in some of my other writing, and let me tell you, this was a place full of it. I was immediately enamored (and some might say blinded) by the bright light that is “Silicon Valley”.

Everyone had a startup or worked at a big tech company. They went to great schools and made a lot of money. Well, not everyone, but most people.

I think San Francisco does a few things well, and I’m here to talk about them. If you’re rationalizing your move to San Francisco, stop reading at the halfway point. If you’re rationalizing your move away from San Francisco, skip the first act.

Just kidding, you should read the whole thing.

I was dropped off on the corner of Sixth and Howard, a cross-street that people frequently cringe at if they’re familiar with the area. A man next to the Uber paid me no mind, continuing to fish change out of a parking meter with a bobby-pin.

I wish him luck and walk down the street to the building that was meant to be my new home. After waiting a bit, I get a tour of the building and I’m given the key to my room. It’s small, gets no sunlight, and the paint is peeling off the walls.

I realize I’m in over my head, but it’s okay. In the evening, I get dinner with some of my new housemates and kick off a life in San Francisco that I couldn’t have imagined a few months prior.

San Francisco contains a niche subset of really smart, focused people that all work in the same sector. In other cities like New York, occupations are a bit more fragmented in your average friend group: a third of your friends are in finance, another third are in tech, and the rest do other things.

If you’re in tech, I think career progression is faster for the first couple of years. When you’re starting your career fresh, you want to be around people that will push you to learn. In San Francisco, everyone is focused on their career, and will happily share tips on how to improve your station faster.

However, I do think the appeal starts to wane once you are shooting for mid-level or senior roles. Most of the skills you need to acquire for future roles are softer, less technical, and available to learn outside of San Francisco.

Another consequence is collaboration. I think a huge part of the reason why San Francisco has remained the primary tech hub in the US, is because people here keep coming up with ideas. Everyone is filled with them, and asks for feedback from others (except for those sneaky “stealth startup” people).

Little do those sneaky stealth startup people know, there are probably five other people in their apartment complex working on the same idea. Maybe if they worked together, they’d have a better chance at success.

San Francisco has taken a huge hit since COVID. A lot of the benefits of collaboration in San Francisco have disappeared as people stay inside or leave the city altogether.

In my last few months in San Francisco (early 2022), the streets still felt empty. Having been here before, during, and (after?) COVID, it’s a bit depressing to see the evolution downhill.

This one is pretty self explanatory: the weather is super nice. In summer and winter, the weather is roughly the same and is rarely too cold or too hot. 

In addition, there’s a lot of nature integrated into the city and available in the surrounding counties.

If you’re outdoorsy, there’s ample hiking, biking, and triking (yes, 

) to be done in the Bay. But for real, don’t do the triking — that’s for tourists.

After being in San Francisco for a couple of months, I felt that I had already met every single archetype. Techies, hippies, hipsters, and every shade in between. I’d like to think that people are nuanced beyond the surface level, but I also think it’s necessary to say: people are more alike than they want to admit.

Everyone tries to differentiate themselves like a business would, to improve their stock. However, most people don’t exist in a vacuum, so they look to others to inform their identity. You might work at a different company, but we probably think alike.

San Francisco

I grew up with parents that appreciated art, but as a kid, I always felt that things that showed sentiment would make me look weak. I think this was reinforced by the kids I was around at school: this kind of thing wasn’t cool.

To avoid embarrassment when I was younger, I would avoid things like poetry or theater at all costs. Having now grown up into an “adult”, I see things differently now. This is my humble attempt at [righting / writing] the regrets above and getting out of my comfort zone a bit.

The sun has already set, too late for me to enjoy,

It’s the nervous tick when people pass.
Fear, destroyer of ambition.

It’s the hour before you sleep, marked by the sinking of regret.

You would have done it differently, if only…

If not for the puppeteer in your head, pulling strings and striking chords.

You continue to falter, until you realize,

You are the creator, the director, the writer, and the actor.

The only puppeteer that guides you is yours truly.

An Attempt At Poetry

Ask for people's opinions.

Why? Because you should seek the truth. Conversation shouldn't serve to convince others, but to challenge your own assumptions.

When you win a conversation, you lose an opportunity to learn. People like you less, want to talk to you less, and withhold information to avoid debate.

Why else? Because you have so much to learn. This might appeal to some of you, less for others.
There's something to learn from everyone, regardless of the topic. Avoid Dunning-Kruger at all costs, don't be a dilettante, humble yourself.

For those of you who don't care about self-improvement, consider this: people will respect you more. Nobody will walk away from a conversation with you feeling annoyed if you just listen. They will view you as a great conversationalist, thoughtful, insightful.

Asking questions is the purest form of flattery, and it requires minimal effort.

Every time I stop talking, I'm always grateful I did. My staunchest ideas are dispelled and replaced with better ones. My notions are invalidated, and I'm given food for thought. I may feel dull mid-conversation, but I end up more knowledgeable the next day.

A suggestion: next time you are talking to someone, notice how much you try to talk.

How much time do you spend thinking about your next point? How much time do you spend trying to get words in? How much time do you spend thinking of rebuttals?

Have you registered, much less understood, what your friend said?

I challenge you to think about how much you've actually gained from conversation in the last year. The likelihood for most people is: you've mentioned the same things, learned little, and spewed a lot of hot air.

Try Listening

Great films, like other forms of art, have one dominant emotion: wonder. The most recent film I watched encapsulated this feeling perfectly: 

. If you haven’t watched it, I highly recommend it.

I can’t fully explain it, but if I could attempt to describe it qualitatively, it’s a mix of exuberance, motivation, curiosity, and a profound sense of longing. I feel excited for the nascent journey that is my life, and I’m ready to undertake it.

I would characterize “wonder” as the primary feeling that drives all of my creativity. This wonder could more specifically be described as “life affirmation”. I think the things I consume (and refuse to consume) trigger this feeling.

Most often, movies can induce this feeling. Books can too, but movies are quicker. Because movies are time constrained, they force intentionality - you can't have everything, only the important bits.

I think writing is a wonderful medium, but I think film can be even more powerful and relatable when done right. The thing to recognize here though is: film is dependent on writing. Writing can exist in isolation, but film cannot. Even silent films have screenplays.

It’s nostalgia for something that I haven’t experienced. I fall in love with the characters, the setting, it’s almost as if I live on the other side of the cameras. I can 

, but more than anything, I feel like a weight has been lifted.

For some two hours, I relinquish my chest-held beliefs and self-absorption to vest my attention in the (fictional) lives of others. In this paradoxically selfless and selfish act of watching a film, I get attached to people that don’t exist, and that I will never meet. I won’t gain anything material out of these people, and they certainly won’t acknowledge me through the screen.

When the credits roll, the mirror is suddenly pointed back at me. Suddenly, I question myself: where am I and what am I doing? Regardless of how much I’ve grown, the answer is always: you should live more.

Through watching others, I gain a better understanding of myself. I’ve noticed this pattern elsewhere in life: genuine interest in others, absorption in learning, and external focus cause you to flourish internally.

Instead of being so wrapped up in yourself, you are engrossed in the wonders of life. Inevitably, when you close your eyes and let your limiting beliefs back in, you’ll see how far you’ve come.

The effects of wonder cause you to seek out the external, and just so - becoming “inspired” is often also externally attained.

Above all, something else inspires me the most: fear. This fear transcends fight-or-flight; time ends all great beings. I’m afraid that tomorrow I could wake up in a nursing home, surrounded by other poor souls who made the same mistake, wondering how the past seventy years slipped away.

I want to feel happily consumed, bone-weary from all the living I’ve done; and I will. At the very least, I can confirm that I will die trying. And every day, I will look up from the footpath to appreciate my surroundings.

I wish I could remember to seek out inspiration more often: a 

, or an enjoyable experience all achieve this for me. With lockdown, I think many have lost touch with this, turning inward never to come back out and see the light.

I’m optimistic and I think people will slowly poke their heads out, seeking more than a return to normalcy: they will seek a better, more intentional way of living life.

Cultivating Wonder

This post is primarily focused on technical interviews. It covers a wide breadth of topics, includes some frameworks for running through problems and a bunch of tips — hopefully it’s useful to some.

A disclaimer: I wouldn’t recommend this article to complete beginners. There is assumed knowledge here, namely: ability to code, familiarity with technical interviews, and some solid CS foundations.

Get to know the shape of the interviews your loops will consist of. If you're going for frontend roles, focus on Javascript, browser technologies, and frontend architecture. If you're going for backend, focus on algorithms and system design.

You should aim to focus on preparing before scheduling interviews, but don’t get stuck in “prep hell”. This means you should start to schedule interviews even if you feel you aren’t ready — this will give you a deadline to adhere to.

Beyond solo preparation, be ready to spend time going through mock interviews. If you ignore this, you run the risk of flailing under pressure. Doing algorithmic problems on your own time is very different from doing them with someone else watching, under pressure.

Remember: you only need to succeed at one loop to get an offer.

You can apply the Pareto Principle here: if you can do all of the Yangshun problems with confidence, under a time limit, you’re ready to pass interviews.

Avoid doing specific problems or implementations, but be intentional about which problem types you solve.

Balance study and practice evenly; dive deep into concepts and understand them before rushing an implementation. Learn broad concepts, drill them in using popular problem sets.

Don’t ignore communication, manual verification (testing by hand), and speed; these are all cornerstones of interview evaluation. You can and should set timers when you sit down to solve problems.

Read the problem statement. Repeat it out loud.

Develop an approach and describe how it works, in writing.

Implement your solution, keeping speed and code quality in mind.

If the interviewer allows compilation, write explicit tests for your program and run them.

People are divided over what to do when you get stuck. Some advocate for struggling without resources, and others suggest you go straight to the solution section.

I think there’s a happy medium. If you’re stuck, gradually introduce hints. If this doesn’t cut it, go to a discussion thread about the conceptual approach. If you’re still stuck, view and understand an implementation. Then put the problem in your queue.

One thing I can agree with most on: never copy down a problem’s solution without understanding it. In fact, never copy-paste a solution at all.

The Job Hunt: Preparation

Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone

Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,

Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,

And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,

Tell that its sculptor well those passions read

Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,

The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!

Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare

The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

The poem above (by Percy Shelley) is about Ramesses II.

The poem itself is powerful, but seeing a photo enhances the effect. This man, who ruled Egypt’s New Kingdom during its most powerful period, chose to impart his legacy by building edifices in his name. Ignoring Egyptologists for a moment, Ramesses’ impact is felt by none. If humans didn’t have an express interest in uncovering historical artifacts — his name would be forgotten.

Ramesses II and his exploits aren’t relevant anymore. Statues that you build will last a few thousand years, if you’re really lucky. You can vest your energies into something impactful and live a meaningful life, but your monuments will fall.

Legacy does not live in a monument — monuments crumble. Impact lasts — zoom out and consider this deeply for a moment. You’ve said things to others that have left lasting impressions, good and bad. You’ve had things said to you that have affected you deeply, good and bad.

Have you thought about the potential impact you’ve had on the life trajectory of others?

When I think about this — I consider my parents. The encouragement my parents gave to me to pursue entrepreneurial ideas, even the ones I felt insecure about, has imparted a pure confidence that I would otherwise not have had.

A child describes their dream to a parent to be nurtured or crushed by the parent’s response. Even if you believe in destiny or creative passion, a lack of encouragement festers and hinders actualization in the child.

Back to legacy — what will yours be? It’s something I’ve grappled with a lot lately. Someone recently told me I seem to be motivated by legacy, and I realized it’s true. Legacy needs to be a meaningful endeavor — not a treadmill.

Ramesses II lived at the top of the world during his time, but perhaps failed to see this. He built his legacy into stone, not the future.

Others have learned from his mistakes. John D. Rockefeller, with a public legacy mired in antitrust suits, facilitated the world’s transition into modern medicine with his charitable giving.

Whether or not you like the Corsican and his conquests, Napoleon’s legacy has been weaved into modern European infrastructure, schooling, and psyche. His feats and contributions have permanently inserted him into history.

These individuals built edifices in their name, but they also integrated themselves into the world via their contributions. Where physical structures may not last, their benefaction has kept them alive.

Colin's Corner