[keiferski]

Well I’m not that interviewer, but I’m pretty sure that getting the exact answer is not really the point of the exercise. Understanding how the candidate thinks, does mental calculations, etc. is the point, and anyone that is hostile to this basic exercise is probably too unpleasant to be a desirable coworker anyway.

[withinboredom]

I don't know if you read that reply as hostile or just saying "hostile in general" but I can promise there was a smile on my face and it wasn't "hostile" at all. The mental calculations is a pointless exercise. Math is so incredibly different than big-system software, and it is more about working memory than anything else, and solving arbitrary math problems won't get you that feedback.

[keiferski]

I didn’t mean literally hostile. More like, “if this candidate would rather get into an argument or simply not complete the challenge we’ve presented them with, then they’re not going to be a good employee.”

Companies want to hire people that do things, not question everything, regardless of whether those things ought to be questioned. You’re being hired to achieve business objectives, full stop.

[trod123]

> Companies want to hire people that do things, not question everything ...

In fairness, following your stated requirements; no one would ever be hired.

There's a direct contradiction such that it can never be true.

Hint: Descartes Rule of Method

[withinboredom]

It depends. If you are more R&D, then questioning everything is exactly what you want. If you want random code in production that "works" then yeah, you probably want a doer.

[em-bee]

the problem is that the interviewer did not state that this is the point of this exercise. especially in an interview i would want to know why a particular question is asked, because that helps me decide how to answer. that or at least give clear instructions: "i want to see how you figure out the answer without a calculator"