> The fact that developers are required to do a dance and memorize LC problems to regurgitate them in a timed setting is because there is a fundamental lack of

> The fact that developers are required to do a dance and memorize LC problems to regurgitate them in a timed setting is because there is a fundamental lack of trust on the hiring side. This is actually offensive. > Now, we might say, okay well LC problem regurgitations provide actionable signal. Oof. You keep calling it "regurgitation" and "memorization" as if there's no way that one could possibly be capable of thinking through those problems with a bit of experience. Maybe it's just me but I don't think a brief test of your fundamentals is that out of line. You're not supposed to memorize your times tables to 100, you're supposed to know how to multiply. I think there's plenty of reasonable criticisms to be made, but if you're equating LC problems to StarTrek trivia I'm not sure you're making them. > But I think that's the problem. Trust should come first, ... How long does it really take to know, when actually working with someone, that they are the wrong hire? Not long in my experience. Let's say 1 month. Just hire people on a temporary basis, pay them, it's a more ethical take home project in a way. And what is the current state? > I've had some pushback on the hire fast, fire fast methodology before as being bad for candidates. However, I don't think it's any worse than the current experience they receive. That is in no way more ethical and it's so, so much worse. It shoves tremendously more cost and risk onto individuals vs companies. I don't know your situation or experience or what's driving these conclusions but your concerns just don't connect to your conclusions for me here. The following is a chunk of my reply very similar comment recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30889389 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30889389 > I can't even fathom in what ways you think "time to hire more, and fire fast?" is more "effective and equitable"? You just shove even more risk onto individuals who might be getting their footing still. > You're just turning a 8-9 hours commitment to an interview into a 6 month commitment. Sure, you get paid but you also have to deal with churn and burn. > I mean, did you think stack ranking was a good idea?