# I failed a speed-coding challenge

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/i-failed-a-speed-coding-challenge/138991>\
**Category:** Jobs\
**Created:** [August 22, 2026, 8:19pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/i-failed-a-speed-coding-challenge/138991 "2026-08-22T20:19:46Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Benny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/49beb7/32.png) [@Benny](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/Benny)\
**Post date:** [August 27, 2026, 8:15am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/i-failed-a-speed-coding-challenge/138991/21 "2026-08-27T08:15:58Z")

</div>

> [@Tamas\_Papp](#):
>
> It is true that sometimes the process end up with no hire, but that is normal

This is inherently tough to estimate. People do collect statistics on how long job listings last or how often they go unfilled, but even the most complete data cannot imply the intent to not hire. Companies don’t announce their intent either, so we must mostly guess from trends and reputation. However, there have been surveys where groups admit to it at significant rates:

- [ResumeBuilder.com-Pollfish survey of hiring managers in May 2024](https://www.resumebuilder.com/3-in-10-companies-currently-have-fake-job-posting-listed/): 40% of companies faked job listings in the past year; 70% of managers believe it is probably or definitely acceptable; and majorities reported a positive impact on revenue, employee morale, and productivity.
- [Clarify Capital survey of employers in 2025](https://clarifycapital.com/ghost-jobs): “1 in 5 employers intentionally leave roles unfilled to reduce costs while appearing active in hiring.”
- [LiveCareer survey of HR Professionals in March 2025](https://www.livecareer.com/resources/careers/ghost-jobs): 45% regularly post ghost jobs, and 69% regularly ghost applicants after abruptly closing the job search.

The numbers are all over the place, so there’s probably some regional or sector dependence on top of surveys being very removed from rigorous estimates. But I personally look toward the higher numbers because people tend to hide bad behavior instead of pretending to do it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tamas\_Papp](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/tamas_papp/32/25949_2.png) [@Tamas\_Papp](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/Tamas_Papp)\
**Post date:** [August 27, 2026, 10:54am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/i-failed-a-speed-coding-challenge/138991/22 "2026-08-27T10:54:41Z")

</div>

> [@Benny](#):
>
> surveys where groups admit to it at significant rates

These are very small sample, cross-sectional surveys, they measure perceptions, not outcomes.

Labor statistics agencies, such as the BLS in the US, run much better ones, which not only ask about vacancies, but actually follow labor movements in a panel structure. A stylized fact is that while short-term fluctuations in _aggregate_ vacancies correlate with short-term changes in _aggregate_ hiring rates, vacancies are much worse predictors if you disaggregate, especially at the firm level (they also have problems with low-frequency movements).

The opposite phenomenon is also present: companies hire people _without_ claiming to have open vacancies.

Intent and perceptions are hard to measure, much harder than actual labor market flows.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![zdenek\_hurak](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/zdenek_hurak/32/53118_2.png) [@zdenek\_hurak](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/zdenek_hurak)\
**Post date:** [August 28, 2026, 2:04pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/i-failed-a-speed-coding-challenge/138991/23 "2026-08-28T14:04:54Z")

</div>

> [@Tamas\_Papp](#):
>
> It is easy to end up with the conclusion that companies are doing all kinds of nefarious things. Some may, but the majority of bad experiences are simply the result of [incompetence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor)

I did not know that this rule of thumb (“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”) has a name. Cool. I would perhaps modify the wording of the rule a bit by replacing stupidity by imperfectness… Of course, it is fine to complain about imperfect services/products/treatments and request their better versions. But still, the world will be a better place if we all do it by not automatically assuming malice or hostility on the other side.

[Previous page](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/i-failed-a-speed-coding-challenge/138991.md?page=1)