The thing is, agree with most of this post (when it comes to interviewing and assessing ability)... except I don't buy that that explains it. Take this part fo

The thing is, agree with most of this post (when it comes to interviewing and assessing ability)... except I don't buy that that explains it. Take this part for example: 'Somehow though I don't reckon there are 99 working programmers sitting there reading those posts thinking "…yeah I am a bit of a failure, I wish I was one of those 1 in a 100 dudes"'. Well, 99 out of 100 programmers don't read those posts. That's how they get by. They never confront themselves with what they don't know, don't read tech blogs, don't visit HN and never go to conferences, user groups etcetera. I've been working in this business for over 20 years, I have no illusions about my own limited abilities, but yeah, 99 out of 100 doesn't seem that unreal to me. The vast majority of programmers I worked with are utterly incompetent. BTW, in interviews I prefer to let the candidate talk about code rather than writing it. Conceptual understanding, and the ability to express that already tells me more than enough. Only when it comes to juniors fresh out of college I may want some confirmation that they can do more than talk a good game.