> Your line of argumentation seems to argue the opposite
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.
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.