[void_mint]

So let's be clear. You're honing in on this block:

> "It's applicable if you're building an extraordinary team at a hard technology startup."

And you're accepting that a timed question about tic tac toe is enough to prove you're capable of being on an "extraordinary team" at a "hard technology startup"?

Really?

[qPM9l3XJrF]

Yes, I think to a large degree being able to build hard technology is a matter of being extremely fluent with writing code and reasoning about data structures and algorithms, as I stated. Being able to solve this problem in 10 minutes seems like a hard-to-fake demonstration of such fluency. When I think about CS open problems and when I solve leetcode problems with algorithmic content to them like this one, it feels like I'm using the same part of my brain (or at least there is significant overlap).

If you don't agree with me that the fluency I described is a significant asset to advancing the state of the art in CS, what do you think a significant asset is?

[void_mint]

> Yes, I think to a large degree being able to build hard technology is a matter of being extremely fluent with writing code and reasoning about data structures and algorithms

Sure. Again. I don't really think an algorithm that shows up as an introduction to algorithm proves much more than a person read "Intro to Algorithms". So again, a timed introductory problem proves some elite technical skill?

> If you don't agree with me that the fluency I described is a significant asset to advancing the state of the art in CS

You're building a cute lil strawman. I think the question is totally out of line with the stated goal. If a college sophomore can answer a question, you're not really assessing much of anything. Also, working at a "hard startup" has nothing to do with "advancing the state of the art in CS".

> what do you think a significant asset is?

If I'm handling hiring for a "hard startup" and am in search of engineers fit for an "extraordinary team", I'm probably going to spend more time finding applicable skills than opening up to Chapter 1 in the closest algorithms book.

[qPM9l3XJrF]

Perhaps you and I just have different views about what the pool of programming talent looks like. I think of your average CS sophomore as someone who will most likely struggle with Fizzbuzz in an interview setting. I'd say if they're a college sophomore, they just read Intro to Algorithms for the first time, and they can solve this problem in 10 minutes, that means they have an extraordinary ability to deeply and rapidly master material, and they'll be able to handle whatever challenge you throw at them. (Either that or they started programming way before they started college.)

In my observation the default state of a student reading a textbook is it goes in one ear and out the other. Most students temporarily acquire a superficial understanding of the concepts which allows them to answer test questions and get a decent grade. To see something in the wild and instantly recognize that it's isomorphic to a concept you studied years ago requires a level of mastery/passion well beyond what it takes to get an A. (I'm talking about school in general here, of course the fact that interviews index so heavily on data structures/algorithms ends up distorting things a lot from the baseline. Still, if you solve this problem in 10 minutes you're one helluva sophomore.)

>Also, working at a "hard startup" has nothing to do with "advancing the state of the art in CS".

I think of "hard technology" like rethinkdb as being exactly equivalent to cutting edge stuff that advances the state of the art in some way... again, maybe there's just been a misunderstanding/miscommunication here