Maybe, except when you try to clarify and their answer is that it's open-ended -- and yet they want something super specific in the end. And the super specific things are just one of many tech opinions and not objectively good design.
> FWIW, many of the FAANGs are famous for asking intentionally underspecified questions, and the candidate preparing properly by figuring out what's in scope and what's not is part of the scoring.
Why is this a good thing though? Why is solving riddles in a professional interview somehow ok?
Hmmmmm... I'd say that "my point of view" differs from yours, and does not fall in line with common group think. Cognitive biases are typically pushed back on, even when they are in your favor.
> since it's the candidate who's the prospective engineer, wouldn't that imply that it's their job to clarify the nebulous spec
Gosh, no. You have it backwards my friend. It's a real opportunity cost on your part to think like that. It's a tactic for some to offload the work onto others so they don't have to spend the time doing it.
> FWIW, many of the FAANGs are famous for asking intentionally underspecified questions
99% (or more) of the startups/companies out there are not FAANG's. They are not the litmus test on how to effectively interview. They have candidates FIGHTING each other for a position at their company. Not the other way around.
Even moreso if you only have nights/weekends to work on it.
FWIW, many of the FAANGs are famous for asking intentionally underspecified questions, and the candidate preparing properly by figuring out what's in scope and what's not is part of the scoring. But at least in an interview you're timeboxed to 45 or 60 minutes!