Programming

I see them as a flawed indicator of the ceiling of someone's theoretical computer science abilities. Having worked with some brilliant people that career shifted via bootcamps, I will contend there's value in having that foundation. I also prefer Leetcode problems over having to memorize search algorithms. But yeah, it's not very reflective of day to day tasks even in R&D heavy projects. The most algorithm heavy thing I've ever done was implement Ramer–Douglas–Peucker to convert points from mouse polling into a simplified line.

(There's clearly a "it's what everyone else is doing" aspect to Leetcode, on top of being very practical to run, hence I why don't see them going anywhere. They're also as objective as anything in an interview will ever be, so as I always say: it can be so much worse.)

I intend to make the hacker "dive into an icky codebase armed with a stack trace and fix a bug" aspect of software development a part of my interview process; plus lean more heavily on system design questions which is where non-entry level engineers really ought to shine. The parts that worry me are the ability to create new tests as they inevitably leak, plus whether I can truly objectively evaluate someone's performance.

I'm curious what you include and how well it works.