I guess now I have an additional reason to ask, so that I can screen out the assholes that will say it's a dumb question...
I guess now I have an additional reason to ask, so that I can screen out the assholes that will say it's a dumb question...
For example, when asked how to go about replacing PostgreSQL with MongoDB, it'd be okay for someone fairly junior to either give a straightforward answer or to turn their nose up and say "eww, no" - but you'd expect someone with more seniority to instead flag that it was an unusual scenario and ask for more detail.
Prepare a vaguely-plausible reason (eg. "we're storing JSON documents and the team are more comfortable with Mongo's tooling"), and this can form the basis for a productive discussion which you can drive in whichever social or technical direction you feel is most appropriate.
So even if the candidate is not using an LLM, the interview process is so messed up now that people willingly go along otherwise they may be rejected for, you know, actually stating what their experience was like.
Funnily enough, that was a YC funded company that I was interviewing for, and I expected a lot better.
I wonder if the pushback is more of a common reaction from more junior interviewers or once that aren't very empowered and just need to go down a script and worry about getting in trouble if they deviate.
I had a systems scenario recently where I was expected to troubleshoot a MySQL master that was trying to backup via rsync to a hung NFS mount.
I successfully resolved the problem and only then detailed how messed up their design was to get into such a situation in 2025.
Another viewpoint I've seen when sharing this story is that the interviewer wants me to start with the "bad" implementation first, then we move on to the "proper" one, but what's the point if I actually have pointed out the flaws beforehand?
I won't disagree about it being messed up though.