a legit job posting

Kinda want to do this just for fun.

I somehow feel offended by the extremely low dumbness filter.

@IntrusionCM

"extremely low dumbness filter"

person.iq < or > iq_min ?

This "low" attribute makes me wonder what this means.

Nice job post

@Demolishun What they want is...

hash('sha256', text + emailAddress)

And they describe it in such detail and with an emphasis that _every_ applicant has do it as if it was a _sophisticated_, _hard_ thing to do.

I mean, you could even do that in a bash shell with an echo and a pipe to sha256sum.

So I'm offended by how low the bar is to pass this dumbness test... And how they present it as if it was something special.

... I mean the solution is even written there, just in SQL.

(In case anyone didn't notice).

Me angry.

Hey, at least they tried.

It does allow filtering automated submissions, though.

@IntrusionCM If I had to guess it will probably filter the applicants that just apply to everything. If it succeeds in filtering a certain volume of applicants then it is worth it on their end.

@IntrusionCM Since any programmer worth their salt can do it, I'm pretty sure it's meant to filter QAs and PMs who think that they don't have to know how to use a computer to carry out simple tasks involving data.

And programmers not worth their salt.

@IntrusionCM Also, it filters those that get offended by silly games. Not a good fit for you.

I think its fun even if its easy. Would prolly make me want to apply just for the fun of it.

I mean this would be fun and great filter TBH.

*browsers that copy the list dots and the ones that don't coming to break the system*

Came here looking for disappointment, but only have been impressed and amused

When it stops being fun and/or upsets you, theres one or more of three things going on:

1. the person in question is no longer improving, but plateaued

2. those offended were never that great.

3. its so beyond you that you're just angry for sport

bonus: you are angry because you're one of the ones who automated the job seeking / application process.

Nah. I'm angry because I think when your company pulls this stunt, you'll have to see it through the end.

Honestly, I'd rather delete tons of spam mails than verify wether the recruit did it right or not.

And from experience, what you sometimes receive (usually later in a recruitment process) as "code" or "solution"... Is something you don't want to see often, best never.

By verification I mean that you have to validate that each applicant actually calculated the right hash. And you have to make notes on his solution / problem solving approach. For every applicant. *Yay*

that is so problematic, because "the body of this page" can be interpretted in different ways; like for instance by copy-pasting the whole page first (which will result in all sorts of encodings depending on the editor), or by viewing page source (which will result in all sorts of changes if there are external assets that are loaded by cdn), or whether or not it was retrieved by parsing library, or the Accept encoding sent, etc.

You should respond not just with the output sum, but also with your method of retrieving the page, using webarchive as the source. You should also write and submit a library/utility for such page retrieval for use should the interviewer dispute your page source.

This is just a version of ReCaptcha to confirm that "I'm actually a developer"

@asgs captpha

@Lor-inc ReCaptcha in the sense that you are made annoyed filling it

@asgs captpha in the sense that the acronym indicates.