[ecshafer]

"Could you be more specific" is a great question to find out more what the person knows and how they thing. You give an answer that, just due to the nature of knowledge and the limitation of language, has some black boxes. And "could you be more specific" is basically asking to go through the black boxes.

Its like asking how does Java work or something like that? You can go from "The JVM interprets java byte code" to quite a lot of depth on how various parts work if you have enough knowledge.

[leeoniya]

i used something like this in unstructured technical interviews all the time.

"you type a phrase into google search, you press enter, get some results. tell me, in technical detail, what happened in that chain of actions"

the diversity of replies is fascinating, you learn a lot about a "full stack" candidate this way.

Feynman's classic "Why?" chain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA

[SAI_Peregrinus]

I'd probably spend at least 20 minutes just to get through how the keyboard works, much more if it's a USB-HID device.

[dmd]

Hah - that is exactly what I did. Someone asked me this question and after 5 minutes in the weeds of the debounce on the mouse click they said "look all we wanted was to find out if you'd ever heard of DNS, let's move on, that was great".

[leeoniya]

the good ones would usually follow up with, "how much detail do you _really_ want ;D"

[pas]

I always wanted to talk about our lord and savior (BGP) but so far no one took the bait!

[mgemard]

There is a chapter on why the sky is blue in The Feynman Lectures : https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_32.html

[ASalazarMX]

A great response is "What exactly do you want to know?", so we don't end up like Cliff giving answer after answer. In his case it was a great test question, but such a vague question is a horrible communication tactic if abused.

[noduerme]

Having two older brothers who are famous trial lawyers, I can attest that it's both an effective line of questioning and a deeply infuriating one. What I learned is that up to a certain point, it's feigned ignorance probing whether one knows a principle behind a stated principle. Beyond that point, though, you can basically make shit up and they won't know the difference. Come to think of it, this is also the sleight-of-hand pulled by LLMs when you ask them for more and more detailed answers. The trick is knowing when your interrogator no longer knows the answer.

[edit] Also, in my family, you'd ask Dad these questions. And if he didn't know the answer, he'd pull out the Britannica, and have you look it up, then go over it with you until he understood it well enough to explain it. "No short answers" was his motto. (He was also a trial lawyer). Most people are just not equipped to handle cross-examination, and it's scary for them... but the primary reason is that they never learned to admit when they don't know the answer.to a question, and that admitting you don't know is not a failing, but actually a strength, especially if it impels your curiosity to go find the answer.

[HPsquared]

It's reminds me of that scene from Fargo: "He was kinda funny lookin'" ... "Could ya be any more specific?"