[rattray]

I think in both cases the people were essentially lying. (EDIT: probably unintentionally).

I applied to toptal (never did dev work through them, but I would) and after I was accepted, was asked to name my rate - at the time, it was US$60/hr and they said I'd likely find work at that (this is correct, by the way - I did find work at that through them but decided not to take it for unrelated reasons).

In regards to the other comment where bbeneschott used that language, the person was also flat-out wrong. When I applied, step one was a phone call with a person, step two was an automated quiz, step three was a live-coding session over skype with an engineer, step four was an app to build at home, and step five was another skype session with an engineer to review that application. Onerous? maybe, yeah. But definitely not inhuman or automated. Sounds like the other person bbeneschott "called a liar" simply didn't make it through step 2 (I can understand why they'd be upset).

disclaimer: I know bbeneschott personally (through toptal). But I don't earn through toptal anymore and have no financial incentive I can think of to support them.

[tptacek]

First, there's no such thing as "unintentional lying".

Secondly, w/r/t/ the person who did their FizzBuzz question in Mathematica: you're trying to suggest that maybe they weren't able to implement FizzBuzz in Mathematica?

[rattray]

Fair point. They were wrong, not lying, and I only used that word because it was the one @idlewords used. Perhaps you're right that I should have corrected @idlewords that accusing people of being wrong is not the same as accusing them of lying. But I love the prose @idlewords writes so I didn't feel that it was my place to correct him on English, when I feel his is better than mine.

I do think it's entirely plausible that an automated coding test could be "failed" by a competent programmer in any programming language, because many automated coding tests are bullshit. It's not Toptal's fault that the state-of-the-art in automated programmer assessment is sub-par. Isn't that the problem Starfighter is solving -- better automated assessment of programmer ability? There's a reason it needs to exist.

[spitfire]

> It's not Toptal's fault that the state-of-the-art in automated programmer assessment is sub-par.

Yes it is.

They choose the tools they use, they take responsibility for their results. It is their business, they are responsible for everything that happens on their behalf.