Here is the question that was asked, and here is the question that was answered (quoting): Asked: "constant time complexity" Answered: "constant time when ave

Here is the question that was asked, and here is the question that was answered (quoting): Asked: "constant time complexity" Answered: "constant time when averaged over a series of appends" In an interview, the onus is really on candidate to answer the question as it was asked. Candidate did not answer question, and there was a breakdown in communication. Candidates interpretation is that interviewers didn't know what candidate was talking about. Interviewers could just as easily have been frustrated that candidate did not see significance of the difference. In my experience, interview technique requires establishing a common ground. As an interviewee, I find that the first step of answering a question is to first go through a number of possibilities starting with the most obvious first. They were most certainly looking for a linked list. This is a simple question with an obvious answer. It would have been good practice to start with the answer they obviously wanted, and then try to broaden their minds. Instead, candidate willfully derailed the interview. To me this looks like a classic breakdown of communication with a root cause of hubris (quite possibly on both sides). While both sides failed in this account, only one has the benefit of hindsight in writing about it here today. Time has offered an opportunity for reflection. What has candidate learned? "[look how clever I am] so joke's on them"