If you can’t assess a candidate in 5 hours, you’re doing something wrong or don’t know what you want.

Predicting the success of an employee and how well they will perform on a brand new team/stack over the course of potentially several years is very challenging and likely impossible especially when the people interviewing you aren’t even on the team you’ll work on. Hence this is why leetcode interviews are the best they’ve got.

No doubt. That’s my point — if you have a process that’s easy to effectively game with coaching, what’s the point?

A company could probably save lots of time and money by cutting some of the fluff in the process. From the pov of a candidate with a good job already testing the waters, these companies come off as trying to hard to add objectivity in situations where it doesn’t exist.

Motivation to game and being coachable seem like desirable skills.

These are also the things that we are looking for most in CodeBreakers students.

Saying that tiny puzzles are the best you can do is a very large leap from saying that you can't predict an employee's performance.

Someone's job performance over time depends on lots of different factors, many out of the control of the company. Understanding someone's potential and risk can be the result of conversations about what they have already done and possibly looking at what they've done. No irrelevant puzzles needed.