[Ozzie_osman]

I'm seeing a lot of justification for this tool (on the tool's page and in the comments here) based on the "LeetCode is bad, companies shouldn't test for orthogonal skills".

While I agree with that sentence broadly, tools like this undermine the process even for non-orthogonal skills. For instance, we administer System Design interviews and Practical Coding interviews (usually, we give the candidate a code base and ask them to make a modification to it)—things that are not LeetCode and are pretty relevant to day-to-day work. We actually let candidates use AI, as long as they show how they're using it. Tools like still undermine our process even for those types of interviews.

I'm a realist and understand that tools like this are inevitable. But I don't think they're ethical, and I think the "Fuck Leetcode" argument justifies their existence. In general, trickery is wrong (whether it's companies doing it, or candidates).

[Tainnor]

> System Design interviews

System Design interviews can be crammed too.

I'd find it much better if people would ask you "tell me about some complicated systems you helped build and what high-level challenged you encountered". Instead you get "how would you design google docs?".