[cxx]

Do you realize that when seen from the outside there's literally no difference between what I'm doing and me being a "bar raiser" or "preventing false positives"? I'm simply using the system against itself within its own rules.

When someone comes in and is able to solve the 2 hardest problems I have cold there's no way I can reject this candidate in a debrief. There's people out there who are able to do this, either through practice or raw intelligence, it's just that they're very rare. If I said I'm filtering for top talent nobody would bat an eye. If you think I'm being unfair you can simply become more skilled at these problems so that I have absolutely no reason to say no, or to not interview in these places (the better approach).

[VirusNewbie]

Yes there is a difference, a 'bar raiser' is still looking to hire someone and trying to evaluate if a candidate would be a good addition to the team.

You said it yourself you aren't trying to evaluate candidates you're trying to make it so no one can get hired. It's no different than if you asked the most obscure piece of technical trivia you could find and failed everyone who didn't know it. Sure someone might know it but that doesn't make it anymore or less of a dick move.

You just found a way to spike people that you think you can get away with. Insane.

[CrimpCity]

Wouldn't your approach have the unintended consequence of making other interviewers pick up your slack by increasing their false positive rate or by weighing other less measurable qualities? aka going by ivy or "feeder" schools?

It seems like your over-reaction is in fact counter productive and may make the whole thing less meritocratic.

My big assumption here is that FB and other places need to hit some numbers every year in terms of new hires especially with FBs no promotion by X years then you're out process.