This article mentions "good" and "great" candidates many times.
How is the author determining which candidates are great? Do "great" candidates answer the questions the best, or is the interviewer following up 1-2 years after hire and examining the impact of the person?
Great candidates aren't those who can answer DS & algorithms questions the best, but it seems that the author thinks that way.
How is the author determining which candidates are great? Do "great" candidates answer the questions the best, or is the interviewer following up 1-2 years after hire and examining the impact of the person?
Great candidates aren't those who can answer DS & algorithms questions the best, but it seems that the author thinks that way.