- Peeking at the source, it's just a zero-width div, which is not accomodating of people with disabilities. This might open you up to litigation if you disqualify a blind person on the grounds he gave the wrong answer 'using AI', when he might have just been answering the question his screen reader read out.
- What most interviews get wrong is that there are usually just a few "bullet points" that if you see them, you instantly know that the the candidate at least has the technical chops.
Instead of creating a test that specifically aims for those bullet points, many technical assessments end up with convoluted scaffolding when actually, only those key bullet points really matter.
Like the OP, I can usually tell if a candidate has the technical chops in just a handful of really straightforward questions for a number of technical domains.
- For anyone who missed the (poorly-explained) trick, the website uses a CSS trick to insert an equals sign, thus showing different code if read or if copied/pasted. That's how the author knows whether you solved it in your head or pasted it somewhere.
- Best test is to listen to 2h meeting without too much details and have to figure out how to ship the feature.
- People are focusing on the > vs the >=, but for me the key point is being able to hold logic and variables in your mind over several iterations of a loop.
I’ve used similar tests in interviews before (a function that behaves like atoi and candidates have to figure out what it’s doing) and the good candidates are able to go over the code and hold values in their head across multiple iterations of a loop.
There are many candidates who can’t do this.
- I think it’s important to test these systems. Let some % of candidates who get this wrong through to the next stage and see what happens. Does failing this test actually correlate with being a bad fit later?
If you want to ineffectivly filter out most candidates just auto-reject everything that doesn’t arrive on a timestamp ending in 1.
- That was REALLY weird to read. In reader mode the comparator in the first conditional was >=. But without reader mode it was just >.
- My take-away: if you're doing simple coding problems like this for an interview with the "CTO", that's a very bad smell.
- I like it, a test so bad, it just might work! I think the trick is not the equal sign, trick is to keep it so simple and small that most qualified people will not try to short circuit it.
- I got the right answer but it was so easy I went in with doubt I had done it right.
Which I understand is my issue to work on, but if I were interviewing, I'd ask candidates to verbalize or write out their thought process to get a sense of who is overthinking or doubting themselves.
- I got the right aswer, because I'm sitting on my Toilet. At my desk I would simply run it and fail.
deleted
- The only correct answer is... both answers (1 and -11).
That is, if you're really interested in pursuing the position.
Not only are you willing to take their tests, but you go beyond what is required, for your own benefit and edification.
That's why, when presented with the URL during the interview, you immediately load it, and right-click View Source into another tab, while simultaneously making small talk with the former CTO interviewer.
Even though you're a backender, you know enough frontend to navigate the interspersed style and html and javascript and so, you solve both puzzles, and weave into the conversation the two answers, while also deciding that this is probably not the gig for you, but who knows, let's see how they answer your questions now...
- somewhat off-topic: I had an interview for an Engineering Manager position with the Head of Engineering.
They had some leet code problem prepared and I tried solving it and failed.
During the challenge, I used some python string operand (:-1) (and maybe some other stuff) that they didn't knew.
In the end, I failed the challenge as I didn't do it in the O(n) way...
These kind of stupid challenges exemplify what's wrong with hiring these days: one interviewer, usually some "vp"/"head of" decides what is the "correct" way to write some code, when they (sometimes) themselves couldn't write a line of code (since they've been "managers" for a millennia)
ps. they actually did not know what `:-1` means ...I rest my case
- Wouldn't this eventually get you sued for failure of ADA compliance?
Safari's reader sees the =. Edge does not.
- I read the problem without reader mode by accident and got it correct, then was mildly confused when I switched to reader mode (which I always use when a site is in light mode, as I prefer dark mode on everything) and saw the ">=". In normal circumstances I would've failed this.
- You've built a filter that punishes verification at the hiring stage, then you're surprised when your team ships unverified code. You get what you select for. He selected for "doesn't double-check." Congratulations, you've got a team of developers who don't double-check.
- Why wouldn't a qualified developer just run the code? Takes two seconds instead of ... whatever you're going for here.
- I don't like to give non value add replies...but this is hilarious in its simplicity. I honestly thought I was losing my marbles - how could anyone NOT get it ri...ohhh! You sneaky you!
- Personally I filter out 100 % of employers that think tests like these are viable filtering criteria.
- Funny, I got it wrong because the reader view showed the equals sign, but I had to go to the website to check my answer, which does hide it.
- Using (Safari) screen reader (I do, I have a hard time reading text on white background), the `=` becomes visible
IMHO this is a dumb test
- Wouldn't the correct answer be 5?
result = result + x // 5 0 5 - If such a trivial test really did[1] filter out many candidates (beyond the technical limitation of the test that some client devices will render the =, as mentioned by users leveraging reader mode), I wonder if there is a greater observation we could draw from it. Personally I would assume 100% of programmers could very easily answer the question in seconds, and if people really were copy/pasting to an AI tool[2], I would assume they are so jaded and exhausted of clever reviews, nine round hiring funnels, leetcode, blackboard code, and so on, that it's just another of countless applications they've made and they just don't care anymore.
[1] Yeah, I'm super cynical about stories like this, and know that many if not most are just invented shower thoughts manifested into a fictional reality.
[2] Alternately they're pasting to a normal editor -- even notepad -- for a more coherent programming font, where again the = appears.
deleted
- How am I supposed to see this equal sign? My browser just doesn't render it.
This is nonsense.