> Instead of actually trying to understand the source of the error, I just sped-run tweaking different values +/- 1 until I got the expected result. That's per

> Instead of actually trying to understand the source of the error, I just sped-run tweaking different values +/- 1 until I got the expected result. That's perfectly valid, when one knows a specific step or result must be positive or negative. Not that much different from dimensional analysis, which speedruns you to get/fix to proper formula (at the cost of skimming on dimensionless constants). Similarly, interviewer was not impressed when they cut me short and started walking me through some step and I pointed to them that their result was obviously wrong as it was dimensionally inconsistent and if they didn't cut me out the formula must have been something like baz*foo/bar^2 or something and now we just have to figure out the constants.