[stronglikedan]

> me: It's more of a "I can't believe you're asking me that."

> interviewer: Great, we find that candidates who can't get this right don't do well here.

> me: ...

Shit attitude from that candidate, considering the interviewer is completely correct. I wouldn't hire them since they are obviously a problem employee.

For those that don't know, Fizz Buzz is less an aptitude test and more of an attitude test. That's why this candidate failed and didn't get the job.

[darth_aardvark]

For those that don't know even more, this interview never happened and this interviewer doesn't exist. It's a funny joke on the internet.

[toast0]

If the candidate didn't even show up to an interview, they're definitely not worth hiring. :p

[NitpickLawyer]

> Fizz Buzz is less an aptitude test and more of an attitude test

The amount of (highly credentialed) interviewees that can't 0-shot a correct and fully functional fizzbuzz is also way higher than a lot of people would think. That's where the attitude part also comes in.

[cyphar]

> For those that don't know, Fizz Buzz is less an aptitude test and more of an attitude test.

The articles which popularised FizzBuzz as an interview question stated as a categorical fact that most computer science graduates or programmer candidates (one article even said 199/200!![2]) cannot do FizzBuzz[1,2,3] and were absolutely recommending it as an aptitude test.

I personally think this whole thing was simply untrue back in 2007 (or at the very least incredibly overstated) and we are paying the price for it with ridiculous 15-stage interviews as a paranoid response to some urban legend from ~20 years ago.

[1]: https://imranontech.com/2007/01/24/using-fizzbuzz-to-find-de... [2]: http://weblog.raganwald.com/2007/01/dont-overthink-fizzbuzz.... [3]: https://blog.codinghorror.com/why-cant-programmers-program/