I didn’t mean to ask for actual responses. Fictitious works fine too. I was just trying to identify the boundary.
I’d never have provided actual responses. However, even vague descriptions of what we’re looking for risks getting more candidates who have optimised to pass the interview instead of actually doing well in the job. Proxies for ability are necessary, but proxies only work so long as they aren’t common knowledge.
The difference between having a lookup table of solutions, and having an accurate model of the system upon which solutions can be simulated and verified.
That’s part of it, but especially with computers—which are built on abstractions—you can have an accurate model of single layers without really understanding how the layers beneath (or above) work. Ideally, we want people who have reasonably accurate models of all layers.
A lot—possibly most—programmers don’t have that, and therefore fall prey to leaky abstractions on occasion. We can’t afford that, not when potential losses are measured in thousands of dollars per second.
I’d never have provided actual responses. However, even vague descriptions of what we’re looking for risks getting more candidates who have optimised to pass the interview instead of actually doing well in the job. Proxies for ability are necessary, but proxies only work so long as they aren’t common knowledge.
That’s part of it, but especially with computers—which are built on abstractions—you can have an accurate model of single layers without really understanding how the layers beneath (or above) work. Ideally, we want people who have reasonably accurate models of all layers.
A lot—possibly most—programmers don’t have that, and therefore fall prey to leaky abstractions on occasion. We can’t afford that, not when potential losses are measured in thousands of dollars per second.