I agree with the most part of it, some of it doesn&#x27;t seem quite right. For instance, where author mentions he is a front-end developer and doesn&#x27;t need to deal with algorithms, and data structures -- it only gives a (false?) sense that he doesn&#x27;t want to deal with the problems. I agree with the &quot;take-home problems and submit solutions&quot;, idea to assess the candidate (or an alternative solution could be -- work at their own office, like how you would if you were an employee on the given problem) This basically strips away the unnecessary pressure.<p>Now, about the real problem -- It has to be solved by both the parties, for instance, somewhere in the middle of the article the author mentions he was asked to write the BFS algorithm. In this particular scenario, the interviewers should NOT expect the candidate to actually remember the algorithm and write the solution right away like a bot (or a human who has used it very recently) would. Here the interviewers can be more humble, more human. They should check whether the candidate holds the problem solving skills which is what is essential and NOT whether the candidate has a computer-memory. Here, they could explain what BFS is, how it works, and then give the candidate some time to come up with a solution.<p>Again, interviewers shouldn&#x27;t expect a correct solution for the problem, it&#x27;s the attitude of the candidate towards the problem, and the way he&#x2F;she thinks about it -- that should be enough to give some idea about the skills he&#x2F;she holds for problem solving.<p>The idea is simple. Don&#x27;t just drop some Dothraki (or some language the candidate does not know) algorithm names, and ask what it is instead, skip the names, explain the problem in simple words and ask for solutions.