[john_strinlai]

remember that we already did the "Excellent answer, that is what I would do as well, now what if we wanted to build it in-house?" part.

the "good answer" was already acknowledged, the "real-world scenario" answer was accepted.

the second part ("what if we wanted to build it in-house") is purely hypothetical to gauge how the interviewee would approach the specific technical challenge (shedding some of the "real-world" constraints so that the focus is technical).

if they again say "well that is dumb i would just use sheets", that is absolutely an interviewee problem.

[johnnyanmac]

Depends on the dyanmic. If you have an excellent candidate you're trying to poach, it becomes an intervewing problem because you're wasting both you and their time.

If they are a dime a dozen, then it becomes their problem. Whether or not they care it's their problem depends on their circumstance.

[john_strinlai]

im sorry but i do not understand any of your comment.

>it becomes an intervewing problem because you're wasting both you and their time.

how is it a waste of time to ask a technical question in an interview?

>If you have an excellent candidate [...] If they are a dime a dozen

how do you determine if they are an excellent candidate or an average one without asking any technical questions in the interview?

>Whether or not they care it's their problem depends on their circumstance.

care about getting the job? why would they interview if they didnt care about getting the job?

[maccard]

I'm not OP but - an interview typically has a power imbalance. They have a job and you want the job, therefore the balance tips in their favor. If the candidate is a headhunted candidate (imagine a video game studio trying to hire a creative director from another studio) rather than a cold application, then the power is flipped and the company is trying to convince the candidate to join them.