Failing this interview saved the candidate from working for a crappy company, doubling their salary isn't really worth it.
Why on earth would the interviewer think that 0 is not a multiple of 3 and 5?
Why on earth would the interviewer think that 0 is not a multiple of 3 and 5?
But even if they weren't: going from 22k to 50k is a massive difference. People are willing to put up with a lot of bollocks for it. Dismissing that so easily is a really privileged attitude.
Where do they mention that they're unemployed now?
A sufficiently strong candidate can afford to wait a litle bit more.
I thought by this they meant (half jokingly) that this potential employer would double the eventual offer because at that point they had just proved how amazing their skills are. Not that they would double their existing salary, and so it doesn't necessarily imply they have an existing job.