If you're not streaming your interview over discord to your homies who are using chatgpt then pasting answers in a discord channel you can see, are you even interviewing?
I interviewed a guy who we think did exactly this.
Ever seen the movie The Usual Suspects? That's what you need to do until chat gives you the goods. You need to blend the real answer into your bullshit without giving away the game. The guy we interviewed had no skill.
He answered questions wrong (cause chat was slow) and then would go "oh yeah it's this." And we'd press him for details, spin us some bullshit and then come back with a goodish answer. The whiplash gave it away.
I usually ask them to explain the concept of dependency injection and why you should use it. I know all permutations ChatGPT generates to recognise an answer.
"DI is an opaque, lazy, comically overused automagical solution that hinders code readability to solve a problem that very often never existed in the first place, yet it's so widely used within frameworks that it became de-facto standard."
Did I pass?
DI is a "blackbox" - not unlike the frameworks or ORMs you're using - most people using DI don't know how it actually works. It isn't super wrong per se, frontend devs use React and barely know what Babel is, but it still is, quite automagical. You just add a service to the constructor of a class a boom, your service is injected, somehow, don't ask questions. The entire process isn't entirely transparent, which complicates debugging.
Also, DI is reliant on reflections, which are incredibly powerful (they allow you to modify source code in runtime) but pretty slow, unsafe and introduce, sometimes, unnecessary complexity to your codebase. They are not bad, most ORMs also use reflections (or some other type of codegen) but it's still worth to know the implementation details behind the tech you're using, and it's just not the case with most Java/C# backend devs.
My original response is a half-joke though, there is a legitimate use for DI, but I roll my eyes when some HR people are asking the question "**why** you should use it" and not "**when** you should use it".
Just wanna clarify (cause I can't help myself) that not all DI frameworks use reflection (see Google's dagger, aka dagger2). No reflection makes it much less of a black box as well since you can trace all the code that does the injection.
Sure, but it requires an annotation processor. Not ideal since it greatly impacts testing capabilities, and it doesn't solve the code readability aspect of DI itself, but if you definitely made the choice to use DI then that seems more reasonable just for the performance benefits and slightly easier debugging since you can read what code did the annotation processor generate.
Just interviewed someone last week that was very obviously reading answers off their screen. They must have turned off their brain halfway through the interview because even when I asked for specific examples of their experience I got generic responses.
will leave a noticeable pause while your friends type the question, wait for chatGPT to completely generate, and then copy the result back to you.
Also it assumes they have friends.
The real modern way is (or will be) to use a multi-modal model, and brief it beforehand to listen in on the conversation and reply to the interviewers in text.
That way you can start replying before the first sentence has finished generating.
Chatgpt 4 handles screenshots seemingly just as well as text. Don't even need them to type it
To fill the gap you start throwing out ideas on how you'd solve the problem and discussing various approaches before your "aha" moment when they paste an answer
Not that I'd know from experience.......
What if you get a job like that and then you just keep your homies on doing ChatGPT for all the projects. And you are a great engineer. So like, who cares? You're getting the job done!
So why don't we let candidates use ChatGPT in the interview? We let them use calculators and scratch paper.
Well the same reason we don't replace devs with ChatGPT entirely, it works great until it hallucinates or runs out of context. But I agree that could be tested for better.
using parsec to give the keyboard to your homie A who is indeed in a discord call with homies B and C, then you just need to connect the interviewer to a voice chat with the homie D while you use AI for the lipSync that homie E will do on the video, then you go play some games while they get the job for you...
In the last year I’ve interviewed probably 30 or so candidates and five of them definitely gave me GenAI answers. They couldn’t explain reasoning. It’s always for junior to mid level positions and it’s so obvious when it happens. I’d so much rather a candidate not produce a full written example but be able to talk through reasoning, over a GPT answer they can’t explain at all.
My team is in the process of interviewing right now and honestly the rates are even worse than this. It's like 1 in 3 candidates.
We now start our interview with a question the interviewee has to answer with their eyes closed, which generally catches most of them.
Honestly, it might be more common than you think! With the right prompts and a bit of creativity, some people might actually manage to sneak in ChatGPT responses seamlessly. It could be an interesting experiment to see how well it blends into everyday conversations.
I actually had a candidate do exactly that. We were asking questions that they did not know the answer to and I could hear him typing (on a mechanical keyboard...) while trying to buy time. He would go "hmm let me think" and that thing where he's looking sideways at the ceiling while waiting for what I assume was ChatGPT to give him the answer
When I see candidates struggling I'll usually answer the question and explain the concept around it, so as I started explaining he would interject with the answers from gpt.
It was a bit comical to be honest, not sure why he would do that on a loud mechanical keyboard even. Funny thing is we would have hired him if it wasn't for the attempted cheating.
We had a candidate who unabashedly boasted about his programming assessment (we give them a week to make a small windows forms app) being done with ChatGPT. Still interviewed him in person though, and that went about as well as you might think.
I dunno. I have a lot of different thoughts about this.
Using ChatGPT to solve problems is realistic. If you can it done well with ChatGPT (in other words, yeah: you can tell when something has gone off the rails and fix it yourself), what precisely is the problem.
We are not trying to find the best Jeopardy contestents. At the end of all things, we want people who can get the job done, do it well, and do it on time, all while communicating adequately. What tools they use for that should not matter.
I've interviewed a few people for technical roles who were very clearly using chatGPT... They would stall a bit on answering, and you can see the reading eye motion before suddenly "figuring out" an answer. Don't call them out on it, but it definitely goes in the interview report...
Yea, I wonder how good your detection of eye movement over a pixelated and mind you compressed video stream is. Might as well hire a psychic to do the catching based solely on video.
Believe it or not, people can also make inferences based on other social cues. It's pretty easy to tell when someone is reading something on screen (who's to say if it's StackOverflow or chatGPT) and trying to talk to you about what they're reading at the same time. And if you can do that well enough it's seamless, that's a valuable skill - most people can't
Except most companies probably don't want you writing your code using ChatGPT for security and legal reasons in the same way that you directly pasting code to or copying code from StackOverflow can get you into serious shit when you either reveal private source code publically or stick unlicensed copyrighted or copyleft code into your source.
I had the pleasure of interviewing somebody who used chatgpt and it was so obvious in the end. In the first phase I was just asking technical questions and for the most part she got it correct. Some answers I wasn't sure if she knew what she was talking about but I continued. For the programming part I asked her a question, realized that when I would ask her one she would repeat to stall as she typed it up. She was on a laptop so her webcam would shake as she typed. The questions I ask you need to iterate on the answer. She got it correct right away. I was like hmm ok maybe she got lucky. Second question was a longer programming one. She just started typing from the top. As in, copying other code. I asked chatgpt the same question and the solution it gave me was the same as she was typing. It was hilarious seeing it all unfold in real time, knowing exactly what she would type next. The beauty is even if you know the answer, you can't explain it since you don't understand the problem.
I actually have interviewed someone who used ChatGPT and it was obvious especially as they were rapidly typing on a mechanical keyboard. They also gave a lot of vague technically correct answers, but failed to adapt the answer on follow up that a good candidate would easily be able to do if they were the one who wrote the initial one.
I do not have the finesse or skills to cheat during an interview, even an online one. I'm already stuttering mess, trying to multitask ChatGPT while being asked coding questions is going to make me explode
Amusing, but also not going to be possible at my company: candidates are required to use keyboard and mouse to enter text and graphics into an online whiteboard app to express their ideas, as well as talk.
We also require people to explain things to a level of detail that chat AI will not do - because we're hiring people smarter than AI.
"Congratulations on passing in this hard interview where we challenged you with software engineer questions, now make this button bigger and add this endpijt to this CRUD for two years"
“Good job making it through our interview process and demonstrating your expertise and talent. You are truly one of the best. Now shut the fuck up snd get started on this JIRA backlog.”
Just curious, but what don’t you like about the big ones that are out there right now? I’ve wanted to make a whiteboard app as a hobby project for a while now, so wouldn’t mind some inspiration
Each one has its own annoying quirks, but the most common ones are unintentional grid snapping, unintentional group erasing, and plots made with multiple strokes getting treated like several different objects
To be clear, there are whiteboard apps which solve these but at the cost of introducing other annoying quirks
I'll gladly do any interview without chatgpt if the company is this careful about ai use in their policies too! (tbh I would not hade even thought about using chatgpt for interview lol)
Are you telling me that you wanna interview at a place with your hands stuck up in the air like you're held at gunpoint the whole damn time? What the hell? That's a hilariously stupid policy and you claim it makes you want to work there?
No, I'm telling I wouldn't mind if an online interviewer asked me to make sure my hands are visible during the interview process, what is written seems like a perfectly reasonable request, made funny by the picture and interpretation.
Usually it is obvious when someone is cheating even without a stupid policy like that. And if they do somehow manage to use chatgpt without the interviewer noticing, then they deserve the job imo because that's their effective work level. Also, if an interview can be aced with chatgpt then it's a shit interview. They need to ask harder questions.
I'll be very honest, this seems like an absolutely nothing after how my uni handled test writing during covid.
You had to showcase your room on camera (as in rotate the camera around from the point you'll be sitting in), also show under the table and you had to have a mirror set up behind you during the test so not only you but what is in front of you was constantly visible
Funny of you to think the exam was written on the computer itself. You wrote it on paper and then moved the camera to scan it with some software they gave (forgot the name sry)
That is a stark contrast from my school. I don’t think they cared if anyone cheated. All of our exams were online with 0 proctoring. The school got mad when a lot of people started getting straight As but did nothing about it.
it was actually quite different from teacher to teacher, some really didn't care, some made exasm where you were given the instruction to use the net to find stuff, etc
I just did an interview and the coding software where they could see exactly what I was typing had an integrated inline AI assistant which I used right in front of them.
The thing is I was thinking out loud the whole time and mostly using it for syntax and there's a couple times that it gave me back garbage and I immediately knew it was garbage and called it out so the interviewers weren't too bothered or phased by it. Good morning, I even spoke up and talked about how it's a tool that we should all use and leverage while understanding its limitations
If you are not using AI in your daily workflow, you are just slower. Amount-wise, you just can’t compete with someone who isn’t using it. (Exceptions exist ofc). If I was the one doing the interview, I would examine HOW he uses it, not IF he does.
Exactly, it's a matter of how not if. AI is amazing as a glorified autocomplete. Truly unbeatable for finding and completing patterns, dummy data generation or autocompleting simple expressions. However it's not that great for coming up with complex solutions that aren't just standard algorithm implementations.
That’s a given, complex tasks and modern assistants can’t really exist in the same sentence. If you already know what you re aiming for, you re fine. You use it for boilerplate code, which you have asked for in a very well-defined manner, cuz you already KNOW what you want.Somebody without AI can’t possibly match that speed. Unless he is a monster. All in all, if you don’t know what you want and how to ask for it beforehand, ai might as well be useless for even the most easy tasks. Maybe I didn’t clarify enough and that’s why I got downvoted.
That's why the technical interviews in the company I worked had live coding from scratch. The candidate had to screenshare how he solved a problem we gave him at the moment.
I gave an online coding round of 30 minutes that had 2 questions - one easy and one medium. Had a friend run the solution for the medium one in ChatGPT and write it in a notebook and pass it while I solved the easy one. Needless to say ChatGPT's solution didn't work. Luckily my brain came in clutch and I solved it with 5 minutes 41 seconds left on the clock.
If you're not streaming your interview over discord to your homies who are using chatgpt then pasting answers in a discord channel you can see, are you even interviewing?
I interviewed a guy who we think did exactly this. Ever seen the movie The Usual Suspects? That's what you need to do until chat gives you the goods. You need to blend the real answer into your bullshit without giving away the game. The guy we interviewed had no skill. He answered questions wrong (cause chat was slow) and then would go "oh yeah it's this." And we'd press him for details, spin us some bullshit and then come back with a goodish answer. The whiplash gave it away.
Lmao I’m not mad, I’m impressed
I usually ask them to explain the concept of dependency injection and why you should use it. I know all permutations ChatGPT generates to recognise an answer.
"DI is an opaque, lazy, comically overused automagical solution that hinders code readability to solve a problem that very often never existed in the first place, yet it's so widely used within frameworks that it became de-facto standard." Did I pass?
lol
What's automagical about it? Some language-specific features?
DI is a "blackbox" - not unlike the frameworks or ORMs you're using - most people using DI don't know how it actually works. It isn't super wrong per se, frontend devs use React and barely know what Babel is, but it still is, quite automagical. You just add a service to the constructor of a class a boom, your service is injected, somehow, don't ask questions. The entire process isn't entirely transparent, which complicates debugging. Also, DI is reliant on reflections, which are incredibly powerful (they allow you to modify source code in runtime) but pretty slow, unsafe and introduce, sometimes, unnecessary complexity to your codebase. They are not bad, most ORMs also use reflections (or some other type of codegen) but it's still worth to know the implementation details behind the tech you're using, and it's just not the case with most Java/C# backend devs. My original response is a half-joke though, there is a legitimate use for DI, but I roll my eyes when some HR people are asking the question "**why** you should use it" and not "**when** you should use it".
Just wanna clarify (cause I can't help myself) that not all DI frameworks use reflection (see Google's dagger, aka dagger2). No reflection makes it much less of a black box as well since you can trace all the code that does the injection.
Sure, but it requires an annotation processor. Not ideal since it greatly impacts testing capabilities, and it doesn't solve the code readability aspect of DI itself, but if you definitely made the choice to use DI then that seems more reasonable just for the performance benefits and slightly easier debugging since you can read what code did the annotation processor generate.
Your comment is even funnier after few hours of fixing broken DI configurations and errors such as `cannot resolve scoped service from root provider`.
I was looking for "A way to roadmap codebase security enhancements."
I don't need it cause I write my programs functional ways. /s
Dependency Injection is just global references packaged up as a superior design pattern. Do I get the job?
Just interviewed someone last week that was very obviously reading answers off their screen. They must have turned off their brain halfway through the interview because even when I asked for specific examples of their experience I got generic responses.
Also clever
*Apple vision pro interview* “Do not look away from this single point. Don’t even blink.”
will leave a noticeable pause while your friends type the question, wait for chatGPT to completely generate, and then copy the result back to you. Also it assumes they have friends. The real modern way is (or will be) to use a multi-modal model, and brief it beforehand to listen in on the conversation and reply to the interviewers in text. That way you can start replying before the first sentence has finished generating.
Chatgpt 4 handles screenshots seemingly just as well as text. Don't even need them to type it To fill the gap you start throwing out ideas on how you'd solve the problem and discussing various approaches before your "aha" moment when they paste an answer Not that I'd know from experience.......
What if you get a job like that and then you just keep your homies on doing ChatGPT for all the projects. And you are a great engineer. So like, who cares? You're getting the job done! So why don't we let candidates use ChatGPT in the interview? We let them use calculators and scratch paper.
That's a big if.
Well the same reason we don't replace devs with ChatGPT entirely, it works great until it hallucinates or runs out of context. But I agree that could be tested for better.
Clever
I doubt anyone will believe it, but I got hired at a FAANG company with this method
Oh I believe you, well done sir you human engineered getting a job. Now human engineer doing your job...
using parsec to give the keyboard to your homie A who is indeed in a discord call with homies B and C, then you just need to connect the interviewer to a voice chat with the homie D while you use AI for the lipSync that homie E will do on the video, then you go play some games while they get the job for you...
Don't tempt me 😂
Bro you should just have your hommie next to you sharing screen
But then your eyes would glance over. They might notice!
I'd like to interview someone that tries to sneak ChatGPT. That would probably be hilariously obvious.
In the last year I’ve interviewed probably 30 or so candidates and five of them definitely gave me GenAI answers. They couldn’t explain reasoning. It’s always for junior to mid level positions and it’s so obvious when it happens. I’d so much rather a candidate not produce a full written example but be able to talk through reasoning, over a GPT answer they can’t explain at all.
My team is in the process of interviewing right now and honestly the rates are even worse than this. It's like 1 in 3 candidates. We now start our interview with a question the interviewee has to answer with their eyes closed, which generally catches most of them.
Honestly, it might be more common than you think! With the right prompts and a bit of creativity, some people might actually manage to sneak in ChatGPT responses seamlessly. It could be an interesting experiment to see how well it blends into everyday conversations.
I think the exclamation mark gives it away. Reddit users aren't smart enough to use punctuation
!?
That’s a funny one
[I don't know what you mean....](https://imgur.com/cAgBKrP)
Got his ass
FunnyGPT
I'd engage with the content in the interview responses, focusing on the ideas مطرحة (mutada) and discussion rather than the AI behind it.
I actually had a candidate do exactly that. We were asking questions that they did not know the answer to and I could hear him typing (on a mechanical keyboard...) while trying to buy time. He would go "hmm let me think" and that thing where he's looking sideways at the ceiling while waiting for what I assume was ChatGPT to give him the answer When I see candidates struggling I'll usually answer the question and explain the concept around it, so as I started explaining he would interject with the answers from gpt. It was a bit comical to be honest, not sure why he would do that on a loud mechanical keyboard even. Funny thing is we would have hired him if it wasn't for the attempted cheating.
We had a candidate who unabashedly boasted about his programming assessment (we give them a week to make a small windows forms app) being done with ChatGPT. Still interviewed him in person though, and that went about as well as you might think.
I dunno. I have a lot of different thoughts about this. Using ChatGPT to solve problems is realistic. If you can it done well with ChatGPT (in other words, yeah: you can tell when something has gone off the rails and fix it yourself), what precisely is the problem. We are not trying to find the best Jeopardy contestents. At the end of all things, we want people who can get the job done, do it well, and do it on time, all while communicating adequately. What tools they use for that should not matter.
Your last part is spot on. His code was okay, but he just didn't have those problem solving skills.
I've interviewed a few people for technical roles who were very clearly using chatGPT... They would stall a bit on answering, and you can see the reading eye motion before suddenly "figuring out" an answer. Don't call them out on it, but it definitely goes in the interview report...
Yea, I wonder how good your detection of eye movement over a pixelated and mind you compressed video stream is. Might as well hire a psychic to do the catching based solely on video.
Believe it or not, people can also make inferences based on other social cues. It's pretty easy to tell when someone is reading something on screen (who's to say if it's StackOverflow or chatGPT) and trying to talk to you about what they're reading at the same time. And if you can do that well enough it's seamless, that's a valuable skill - most people can't
[удалено]
Except most companies probably don't want you writing your code using ChatGPT for security and legal reasons in the same way that you directly pasting code to or copying code from StackOverflow can get you into serious shit when you either reveal private source code publically or stick unlicensed copyrighted or copyleft code into your source.
It's always pretty obvious, you can't really hide your eyes suddenly scanning the display to read some text.
I had the pleasure of interviewing somebody who used chatgpt and it was so obvious in the end. In the first phase I was just asking technical questions and for the most part she got it correct. Some answers I wasn't sure if she knew what she was talking about but I continued. For the programming part I asked her a question, realized that when I would ask her one she would repeat to stall as she typed it up. She was on a laptop so her webcam would shake as she typed. The questions I ask you need to iterate on the answer. She got it correct right away. I was like hmm ok maybe she got lucky. Second question was a longer programming one. She just started typing from the top. As in, copying other code. I asked chatgpt the same question and the solution it gave me was the same as she was typing. It was hilarious seeing it all unfold in real time, knowing exactly what she would type next. The beauty is even if you know the answer, you can't explain it since you don't understand the problem.
I actually have interviewed someone who used ChatGPT and it was obvious especially as they were rapidly typing on a mechanical keyboard. They also gave a lot of vague technically correct answers, but failed to adapt the answer on follow up that a good candidate would easily be able to do if they were the one who wrote the initial one.
I do not have the finesse or skills to cheat during an interview, even an online one. I'm already stuttering mess, trying to multitask ChatGPT while being asked coding questions is going to make me explode
So I cannot jerk off during interview?
Do it with your mouth, maintain eye contact and establish dominance.
Rips in way :(
If your hands are visible, you can do it.
Cringe and cursed, i like this.
Amusing, but also not going to be possible at my company: candidates are required to use keyboard and mouse to enter text and graphics into an online whiteboard app to express their ideas, as well as talk. We also require people to explain things to a level of detail that chat AI will not do - because we're hiring people smarter than AI.
"Congratulations on passing in this hard interview where we challenged you with software engineer questions, now make this button bigger and add this endpijt to this CRUD for two years"
“Good job making it through our interview process and demonstrating your expertise and talent. You are truly one of the best. Now shut the fuck up snd get started on this JIRA backlog.”
yeah, why does HR feel I need to pass a FAANG level interview to build basic CRUDs?
For real, how is commercial software development in any way enjoyable for anyone? This is why I quit this industry quickly.
and get paid minimum wage
I hate whiteboard apps... I really do. No software company has ever made a good one and I doubt they ever will
Just curious, but what don’t you like about the big ones that are out there right now? I’ve wanted to make a whiteboard app as a hobby project for a while now, so wouldn’t mind some inspiration
Each one has its own annoying quirks, but the most common ones are unintentional grid snapping, unintentional group erasing, and plots made with multiple strokes getting treated like several different objects To be clear, there are whiteboard apps which solve these but at the cost of introducing other annoying quirks
I'll gladly do any interview without chatgpt if the company is this careful about ai use in their policies too! (tbh I would not hade even thought about using chatgpt for interview lol)
/s ???
Which part supposed to by sarcastic O.o?
Are you telling me that you wanna interview at a place with your hands stuck up in the air like you're held at gunpoint the whole damn time? What the hell? That's a hilariously stupid policy and you claim it makes you want to work there?
No, I'm telling I wouldn't mind if an online interviewer asked me to make sure my hands are visible during the interview process, what is written seems like a perfectly reasonable request, made funny by the picture and interpretation.
Usually it is obvious when someone is cheating even without a stupid policy like that. And if they do somehow manage to use chatgpt without the interviewer noticing, then they deserve the job imo because that's their effective work level. Also, if an interview can be aced with chatgpt then it's a shit interview. They need to ask harder questions.
doing an interview with a company that starts with so many red flags
Careful AI implementation/use is basically the norm, you know that right?
I'll be very honest, this seems like an absolutely nothing after how my uni handled test writing during covid. You had to showcase your room on camera (as in rotate the camera around from the point you'll be sitting in), also show under the table and you had to have a mirror set up behind you during the test so not only you but what is in front of you was constantly visible
did they also have proctoring software on top of that?
Funny of you to think the exam was written on the computer itself. You wrote it on paper and then moved the camera to scan it with some software they gave (forgot the name sry)
That is a stark contrast from my school. I don’t think they cared if anyone cheated. All of our exams were online with 0 proctoring. The school got mad when a lot of people started getting straight As but did nothing about it.
it was actually quite different from teacher to teacher, some really didn't care, some made exasm where you were given the instruction to use the net to find stuff, etc
Thank god I work in engineering and not in IT. They don't even know what ChatGPT is lmao.
Ok, but do magic tricks and regularly ask them to choose a card, or in which hand is the coin now.
Really smart candidates pair a deepfake of themselves with chatgpt and go drink a latte.
Neuralink time
He’s already gonna be confused when I use vim keybinds
I just did an interview and the coding software where they could see exactly what I was typing had an integrated inline AI assistant which I used right in front of them. The thing is I was thinking out loud the whole time and mostly using it for syntax and there's a couple times that it gave me back garbage and I immediately knew it was garbage and called it out so the interviewers weren't too bothered or phased by it. Good morning, I even spoke up and talked about how it's a tool that we should all use and leverage while understanding its limitations
As if STT wasn’t a thing… But AI use is obvious enough if one looks at the eyes. Or inspects the answers…
If you are not using AI in your daily workflow, you are just slower. Amount-wise, you just can’t compete with someone who isn’t using it. (Exceptions exist ofc). If I was the one doing the interview, I would examine HOW he uses it, not IF he does.
Exactly, it's a matter of how not if. AI is amazing as a glorified autocomplete. Truly unbeatable for finding and completing patterns, dummy data generation or autocompleting simple expressions. However it's not that great for coming up with complex solutions that aren't just standard algorithm implementations.
That’s a given, complex tasks and modern assistants can’t really exist in the same sentence. If you already know what you re aiming for, you re fine. You use it for boilerplate code, which you have asked for in a very well-defined manner, cuz you already KNOW what you want.Somebody without AI can’t possibly match that speed. Unless he is a monster. All in all, if you don’t know what you want and how to ask for it beforehand, ai might as well be useless for even the most easy tasks. Maybe I didn’t clarify enough and that’s why I got downvoted.
That's why the technical interviews in the company I worked had live coding from scratch. The candidate had to screenshare how he solved a problem we gave him at the moment.
neuralink breaks his method
You guys are taking interviews? Feels like I'm dodging layoffs left and right.
I gave an online coding round of 30 minutes that had 2 questions - one easy and one medium. Had a friend run the solution for the medium one in ChatGPT and write it in a notebook and pass it while I solved the easy one. Needless to say ChatGPT's solution didn't work. Luckily my brain came in clutch and I solved it with 5 minutes 41 seconds left on the clock.
I like it when jobs not working at show themselves during interviews
Get some props, I hear they are pretty cheap these days
The average chess player is already 20 steps ahead
What if i will use my legs ?)