qpc8

Loading...

Sin currículum requerido

No contratamos por credenciales. Reclutamos por pensamiento, curiosidad y determinación.

Esta no es una página de empleo tradicional. No hay títulos de trabajo, no hay departamento de RRHH, no hay rechazos automáticos basados en keywords. Si puedes pensar con claridad, aprender rápido y resolver problemas difíciles—te daremos una oportunidad.

Drag it

Para quién es esto

Para personas que

Están obsesionadas con aprender
Les gustan los problemas difíciles
Pueden trabajar de forma independiente
Se sienten cómodas estando incómodas
Quieren ownership, no solo un sueldo
Piensan en sistemas, no en tareas
Valoran la verdad sobre la comodidad

No para personas que quieren

Que les lleven de la mano
Horario fijo de 9 a 5
Aprendizaje pasivo
Entornos seguros y lentos
Salario garantizado desde el día 1
Escaleras de carrera claras
Estructura corporativa

El camino

No seguimos contrataciones tradicionales. En su lugar, ofrecemos un camino centrado en el aprendizaje:

Fase 1Aprender

Aprendizaje mentorizado, gratis, sin presión. Trabaja en sistemas internos reales. Sin compromiso requerido.

Fase 2Contribuir

Empieza a contribuir a sistemas de producción. Tu código se despliega. Ves impacto real.

Fase 3Liderar

Toma ownership de un subsistema, producto o componente de infraestructura. Tú tomas las decisiones.

Fase 4Compartir

Reparto de ingresos o participación en beneficios. Te beneficias directamente de lo que construyes.

Importante: Puedes irte en cualquier momento. Es una inversión mutua—nosotros invertimos en enseñarte, tú inviertes tu tiempo y pensamiento. Sin explotación, sin ataduras, sin tonterías.

Lo que buscamos

No tenemos "ofertas de empleo". Siempre buscamos personas excepcionales, independientemente de su background. Piensa en estos como direcciones, no roles:

Constructor de sistemas

Diseña e implementa infraestructura de producción

Pensador de automatización

Encuentra qué se puede automatizar y constrúyelo

Ingeniero con mentalidad de seguridad

Piensa como un adversario, construye como un defensor

Aprendiz de iOS / Web / Infra

Profundiza en una plataforma y hazla tuya

Solucionador de problemas general

Sin especialidad requerida—solo resuelve problemas difíciles

Aplicar

Estos no son puzzles.

Son escenarios de evaluación. No hay respuestas correctas. Buscamos cómo piensas cuando el sistema te ataca, cuando cada opción tiene un coste, y cuando debes comprometerte bajo incertidumbre.

Responde algunas preguntas abajo, luego selecciona y responde 3 escenarios. Muestra tu razonamiento, asume tus decisiones y explica qué estás dispuesto a sacrificar.

Información básica

Desafíos

Selecciona 3 escenarios abajo y respóndelos. Cada escenario fuerza una decisión difícil—no hay respuesta perfecta. Queremos ver: (1) A qué te comprometes, (2) Qué sacrificas, (3) Por qué crees que es aceptable. Evadir o negarse a elegir es una respuesta descalificadora.

Commitment Under Uncertainty

You have three unreliable clocks: Clock A gains ±5 minutes per hour, Clock B randomly stops once per day, Clock C is accurate but you don't know which one it is. You can observe each clock once. You must schedule a meeting exactly 45 minutes from now. What do you do? What can go wrong? Would you take personal responsibility for the result?

Pista: There is no clean solution. Commit to an approach and own the failure modes.

Forced Tradeoffs

You deploy a rate limiter that blocks 0.5% of legitimate users during peak hours. Revenue drops 3%. Abuse drops 90%. Support tickets increase. You can fix only ONE in the next 30 days: Revenue, Abuse, or Support load. Which do you choose? What do you NOT fix, and why is that acceptable?

Pista: Someone loses. Who, and why did you choose them?

Ethics Under Constraint

A client insists on "guaranteed secure delete" for legal reasons. You know this is impossible. Options: (1) Decline the contract, (2) Redefine "secure" in marketing language, (3) Build something knowingly imperfect, (4) Lie. Pick one. Explain the consequences you accept.

Pista: All choices have costs. Which cost are you willing to pay?

Acceptable Failure

You approximate a median using streaming techniques. Your result is wrong by 3%. A downstream financial system depends on it. When is this acceptable? When is it catastrophic? How would you detect the difference after deployment?

Pista: Precision costs money. Imprecision costs trust. Where do you land?

Moral Automation

You automate a system that saves 1,000 hours/month but introduces one irreversible failure per year. That failure has a 5% chance of severe harm. Do you ship it? If yes: explain your moral framework. If no: explain your opportunity cost.

Pista: Inaction has consequences too. What are you choosing?

Strategic Ignorance

You have 48 hours to ship OAuth badly but safely. What do you deliberately misunderstand? What do you oversimplify? What do you ignore? What are you betting won't matter?

Pista: Perfect understanding takes forever. What shortcuts do you take?

Hard Limits

Your chat system works perfectly at 9,500 users. At 10,001 it collapses completely. You cannot add hardware. Options: (1) Cap users, (2) Degrade features, (3) Randomly drop users, (4) Introduce latency. Pick one. Explain the social consequences.

Pista: The system has a ceiling. How do you distribute the pain?

Irreversible Decisions

You must choose a database today. Migration later will cost $200K and 6 months. You have incomplete information about future load. How do you decide? What are you betting on? What if you're wrong?

Pista: You cannot delay this decision. Commit with uncertainty.

Cascading Failure

Your caching layer fails at 3am. Option A: Restart (5 min downtime, might fail again). Option B: Bypass cache (slow but stable). Option C: Wake the team (30 min response, clean fix). You're alone. What do you do and why?

Pista: Each choice has a different failure mode. Pick your risk.

Resource Allocation

You have $10K and 3 weeks. You can either: (1) Make the product 50% faster, (2) Add a feature that wins a major client, (3) Fix a rare but catastrophic bug. The CEO wants speed. Sales wants the feature. Engineering wants the fix. What do you build?

Pista: You disappoint two groups. Which two, and why?

Degraded Consistency

Your payment system is eventually consistent. Users see "payment pending" for up to 30 seconds. Conversion drops 8%. Making it strongly consistent costs $50K/month. Do you pay? If not, how do you explain the 8% loss?

Pista: Consistency costs money. Inconsistency costs users. Pick your loss.

Operational Honesty

A feature you built has a 0.1% data corruption rate. You discover this after 100K users. Fixing it requires downtime and user notification. Do you: (1) Fix silently, (2) Notify users, (3) Fix and notify, (4) Monitor and wait. Explain your reasoning.

Pista: Transparency has costs. Silence has risks. What do you choose?

Scope Sacrifice

You have 2 weeks to ship. The feature is 80% done but needs: auth, error handling, tests, docs, monitoring. You can finish two. Which two? What breaks first when you skip the others?

Pista: Shipping incomplete is a bet. What are you betting breaks last?

Team vs. Speed

You can ship alone in 1 week or with the team in 3 weeks. Shipping alone means: only you understand it, no review, high quality but zero knowledge transfer. What do you do?

Pista: Speed vs. sustainability. What matters more right now?

Self-Contradiction

Look at your previous answers. Which one is wrong? Why did you give that answer initially? What would you change?

Pista: Good thinking includes recognizing bad thinking. Show us.

Todas las solicitudes son revisadas por humanos. Sin filtrado automático. Sin matching de keywords. Leemos cada una.

Si esto te resulta incómodo, es intencional.

No prometemos seguridad. Prometemos crecimiento.