[johnnyanmac]

> You cannot categorically claim that LC tests are largely memorization tests rather than raw problem-solving skills.

Sure I can. By the time you get to Leetcode hard, these aren't just "can you derive the answer". The questions by design take 45+ minutes and have some weird quirk in it that is nominally related to the core concept being tested. These aren't necessarily meant to be done on the fly during an interview period.

>Not being able to see up the mountain doesn’t imply there are no climbers above you.

a better analogy is that youre on a road and you see a freeway above you. The people above you aren't "better", they are simply on another road, to another destination. But they aren't necessarily worse either. They could be on their way to a dead end job or could be a billionaire CEO.

That is to say, it's useless comparing yourself to other people you don't know. Everyone has their story.

[jonkho]

Thank you. You just proved my point that “categorically LC is not largely memorization” by reinforcing that only in specific cases in some specific levels that you do need some specific domain knowledge.

[johnnyanmac]

My point is that LC hards were not intended nor designed to be perfromed in an interview setting, and essentially most people will only do the in that typical interview timeline if they've lucky enough to have seen it before or lucky enough to understand the specific domain knowledge.

So I'm not sure we're interpreting the same conclusion here unless you think trick questions are a mark of a "good engineer".

[jonkho]

My point is that a claim cannot be made that categorically LC tests are generally a test on memorization. It appears your point does not disprove that. You mention exceptions, that in fact proves the general rule is true (I.e your claim isn’t of the form: most leet code questions of almost any level cannot answered without spending 45 mins and requiring specialized domain knowledge as a prerequisite). You cannot argue against general rule by pointing out specialized exceptions. Cats generally have 4 legs as a rule. Yes exceptional conditions exists where they don’t have 4 legs, but the generally rule holds true. To argue against, your point must take the form: “as a rule, most cats do not have 4 legs.” Do you understand?

[johnnyanmac]

You can disagree, but I and many others can very much make a claim. I argue it can even be a well supported claim. Your personal disagreement isn't a refutal of any and all claims.

>You cannot argue against general rule by pointing out specialized exceptions.

Lertcode hards in interviews have been getting more common for a decade now. At what point do we stop pretending that more cats aren't losing their 4th leg and announce an epidemic?

It shouldn't be common, but it's becoming more common. I haven't seen any claims in any conversion even disagree with the notion, let alone provide hard evidence.

[jonkho]

Again, my initial purpose of responding to the OP was his perspective is formed by his own ability, a trap you also fall into. Again, Higher mountain climbers and all. Lower climbers are more numerous and will agree and validate their experience amongst themselves as a group - and indeed they are the larger voice. Feel free to have the last word.