> Unless you explicitly highlight to a candidate how 3 is impossible, you are excluding candidates who would do what you want in a real job, but not in an inter

> Unless you explicitly highlight to a candidate how 3 is impossible, you are excluding candidates who would do what you want in a real job, but not in an interview setting. That's exactly what we do. We make it abundantly clear that it's not possible, nor is the expectation such that it happens. We also turn this into a collaboration and pairing role, with times to dive in and out.. pretty much like exactly what this role entails. This is how we avoid the "take away assignment" or "l33tc0de" problem. We invest in our technical interviews. Similarly - we let candidates know in advance that this is exactly how they take place, and that they're free to use their own equipment if they prefer. The idea is to "simulate" work. This doesn't replace the need to go deeper. Instead, this eliminates a very specific type of filter, in exchange for getting to know each other, collaborating, and hopefully mutual understanding.