> My question is: what happens after people pass fizz buzz? We tune up a little bit the difficulty. The point is to start a conversation and see what the candi

> My question is: what happens after people pass fizz buzz? We tune up a little bit the difficulty. The point is to start a conversation and see what the candidate knows about, ¿does he knows about time complexity?¿differences between passing by reference/value?. Afterwards we talk about the technology that they use, what they like, and what they will like to use in the future. Just to see if they read about their field and are able to talk without saying something egregious. And if they do fine we bit the bullet and hire them. > nobody owes them an employee either Now that I am "in the other side", I can see a lot of things that will definitively would improve the problem at micro/team level, like posting salary or increasing the WFH days. But ¿would they improve at macro/company level? The things is, companies, including tech companies, from small startups to big corps, usually have much more problems than the quality or quantity of their software. (signed, someone that has been rejected, and will be rejected, to more interviews that he has passed)