| ▲ | kardianos 9 hours ago | |
Yes. On principle, survival in many ways is "right". But also, these little things aren't useful. But having been on the other side of the table, there are too many candidates you can't do basic programming, debugging, or logical thinking. So you dial it back, where do these people fall down? Often, they fall down at elementary questions like these "nano questions" and people who can do all these, these "nano questions" always known. They are proxy questions that act with a high degree of correlation to the people who I want. | ||
| ▲ | bulatb 8 hours ago | parent [-] | |
I've been the guy who nailed it, and I've also been the guy who proves that frauds are everywhere and resumes are meaningless because he can't do FizzBuzz.[0] I'm not doubting there are people who apply and just aren't qualified. But if your evidence that there's a ton of fraud is coming from a fraud detector which keeps finding fraud, confirming that you need the fraud detector, and showing you how good it is at finding fraud, how would you detect if it was finding fraud that isn't there? | ||