I agree with that comment. I have a part 2 of the blog post where I address the issues I have seen in interviewers
https://aitorvs.github.io/post/most_common_interviewer_mista...
https://aitorvs.github.io/post/most_common_interviewer_mista...
Let me cherry-pick an example: You mention that you don't read a candidate's CV before your one interaction with them (the technical interview). As you say, this is a debatable choice (I find it somewhat acceptable).
At that point, has anyone else at your company read the candidate's CV and cover letter? Sounds stupid, but you would not believe how many people ask about specific topics ("So have you worked with a relational database before?") not in order to ask deeper questions about knowledge or experience, but just in order to tick off checkboxes on their HR form. (This is not made up, this has actually happened to me.)
This bigger issue of a company never asking themselves "How do we as a company show that we actually give a shit about each candidate, and are not just looking for a butt in an office chair" is where in my experience, lots of companies are still completely failing at self-reflection.
My understanding is that this situation happens as a test to see that you were the one that wrote your resume.
Thanks for the insight!
In that context, I think it's a great question:
> given a list of numbers, return two numbers such that one times the other results in 220
It's highly plausible that at some point in the candidate's career, a nontechnical coworker or manager will use nontechnical language to ask them to do something technical, and they'll need to ask for better specification.
A candidate who smart-assedly ignores the input list and returns the numbers 10 and 22 is demonstrating that they assume the asker is an idiot not even worth the time to ask clarifying questions. The candidate has messed up priors: what is the chance that the only piece of information provided in the question is utterly irrelevant? The candidate is also prone to unilaterally making assumptions that reduce their workload, possibly while smugly patting themselves on the back for Kobayashi-Maruing their way past the idiotic interview question. That's bad.
A candidate who has a modicum of social intelligence would reasonably assume that the asker expects them to limit their consideration to the given list (otherwise what's the goddamn point?). Even then, there are ambiguities, which the article rightfully points out you should ask about.
If I was given that question it would be a red flag.
1) it’s a stupid algorithm question similar to what I saw in high school, 2) it’s poorly worded and nonsensical.
Depending on what I know about the company I may or may not give them the benefit of the doubt. In most cases it’s safer to assume the interviewer (and by extension the team) is just not competent.
It stands to reason that if you rejected this question in an interview with the complaint that it was "poorly worded and nonsensical" (I put it to you that it's a perfectly meaningful question), instead of taking the constructive route by asking clarifying questions, this would probably count as a red flag to the employer about you. So again, the question would effectively inform both parties in this case that they are not mutually compatible.