|
|
|
|
|
by hackinthebochs
5635 days ago
|
|
I think this is a great interview question, and I wouldn't have came up with the bloom filter answer. The point is the discussion triggered by the question, not any particular answer. You're taking it like it's a knock on you that he wouldn't 'accept' your answer but lead you down the line of questioning he planned for. But this exactly what interviewers should do: be prepared for a certain line of discussion and nudge the candidate in that direction. If someone was familiar enough with bloom filters to come up with that answer on their own, that should be an advantage to them. The chances of false negative seems minimal since it's uncommon and I don't think some hack would understand it well enough to use it so appropriately after a cursory glance at a wikipedia page. On the other hand, the discussion is more important than the answer so the person spouts off bloom filter immediately is short circuiting the very process he's there for. So it balances out either way. |
|
On the other hand, I learned something today (probabilistic data structures?!? WTF?!?)
I think the fundamental problem with the question is that it is the wrong way round. It is designed so that the interviewer can show off his expertise, whereas traditionally the view would be that you need to get the person being interviewed to show off their expertise.
Of course, if what you are really interviewing for is people who will bask in your awesomeness, then it is ideal.
----
I had a really weird interview this week. I couldn't get a word in edgewise. Haven't heard back from them either. Bizarre. If you're not going to let me talk, what is the basis for rejecting me? :D