When I'm asked these questions I either provide a solution in Haskell or Erlang to highlight how dumb of a dick waving contest they are and/or I cite the PhD re

When I'm asked these questions I either provide a solution in Haskell or Erlang to highlight how dumb of a dick waving contest they are and/or I cite the PhD research that went into the thing they're now taking for granted as being "obvious". I once asked an interviewer who claimed to be a distributed systems engineer to write out the fast paxos protocol or sketch out the operations and structure of a DVVset. They had no idea what I was talking about. Should they have been fired on the spot? I can "code", and I still reject the premise and supposed utility of these dumb assessment methods on the grounds that I know they're dumb, I know they don't work, and I know this because I bothered to dig into the research on the subject of proficiency assessment. Also, knowing space-time complexity isn't even remotely useful by itself. It's much more valuable to also understand average and worst case complexity, and how they impact a given use case, but when I ask the interviewers about this, they almost never know the answers, and they clearly don't think they're unfit for their own job, so which one of us is right?