2 ms·

There's nothing wrong with breaking down 7*6 how you did, I do the same. It's not far from how common core, aka new math actually tries to teach it. It actual

There's nothing wrong with breaking down 7*6 how you did, I do the same. It's not far from how common core, aka new math actually tries to teach it. It actually shows you understand the mechanics, where using a calculator to come up with the same answer does not... it only shows you know how to push buttons into a calculator.

zamalek 1y ago
> using a calculator to come up with the same answer does not I'm not sure why you're still talking about this. A basic "non-graphing" (90s "scientific calculator") is not capable of doing all the work for you. All it did was the basic things like add, mul, sub, sin, cos, etc. I am referring to one of these[1]. > It's not far from how common core, aka new math actually tries to teach it. It actually shows you understand the mechanics I understand the mechanics of mathematics but still fared more poorly than I should have because I messed up a simple op like multiplication more often than I should have. My point is that had I had access to a basic calculator I would have scored significantly better in school. I went from Bs to As (80%, not sure what that is in GPA) in university by mere virtue of being able to use a simple calculator. Again, not being able to use a [basic] calculator tests a signal that isn't actually important. Not being able to use Google/AI/whatever in your interview similarly tests an unimportant signal. The most important hire signal for a SDE is actually how they operate in a team and how they communicate with stakeholders, which these coding tests don't do. [1]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/FX-77.JPG https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/FX-77.JP...
- tracker1 1y ago
  I'm actually against the leetcode style coding tests. They're exceedingly lopsided against more experienced developers further from school or younger learning where memorizing various memory structures is/was more emphasized. I prefer a paired interview scenario with actual questions about approach to working through problems. As an interviewee I do horribly with the leetcode questions, there's no opportunity for clarifying questions, and some systems penalize you for looking away from the screen even. It's unnerving and I refuse to do them any more. I also don't mind the "here's a task/challenge that should take a half hour or so." where you simply create a solution, commit to github, etc. As an interviewer I prefer the walkthrough interviews as well... I usually don't get into pedantic exercises, or language/platform nuances unless the applicant uses "expert" on more than one or two subjects.

zamalek 1y ago

> using a calculator to come up with the same answer does not I'm not sure why you're still talking about this. A basic "non-graphing" (90s "scientific calculator") is not capable of doing all the work for you. All it did was the basic things like add, mul, sub, sin, cos, etc. I am referring to one of these[1]. > It's not far from how common core, aka new math actually tries to teach it. It actually shows you understand the mechanics I understand the mechanics of mathematics but still fared more poorly than I should have because I messed up a simple op like multiplication more often than I should have. My point is that had I had access to a basic calculator I would have scored significantly better in school. I went from Bs to As (80%, not sure what that is in GPA) in university by mere virtue of being able to use a simple calculator. Again, not being able to use a [basic] calculator tests a signal that isn't actually important. Not being able to use Google/AI/whatever in your interview similarly tests an unimportant signal. The most important hire signal for a SDE is actually how they operate in a team and how they communicate with stakeholders, which these coding tests don't do. [1]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/FX-77.JPG https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/FX-77.JP...

tracker1 1y ago
I'm actually against the leetcode style coding tests. They're exceedingly lopsided against more experienced developers further from school or younger learning where memorizing various memory structures is/was more emphasized. I prefer a paired interview scenario with actual questions about approach to working through problems. As an interviewee I do horribly with the leetcode questions, there's no opportunity for clarifying questions, and some systems penalize you for looking away from the screen even. It's unnerving and I refuse to do them any more. I also don't mind the "here's a task/challenge that should take a half hour or so." where you simply create a solution, commit to github, etc. As an interviewer I prefer the walkthrough interviews as well... I usually don't get into pedantic exercises, or language/platform nuances unless the applicant uses "expert" on more than one or two subjects.