I'm not employing a specific strategy. A better wording would be discovering covered calls. I already own the shares so the downside risk is inherent. Betting against upside is great in these volatile markets, and given enough capital for the stock, I can buy 100 more if I get close to break-even price on the upside. For the last two weeks I sold calls for TQQQ.
I once asked in a WebEx interview if the candidate had paired programming experience. The response I received was the Google definition of paired programming. After clarifying that I wanted the candidate to talk about their experience, and they continued reciting the Google definition, and the interview ended there.
The structure has the test pre-written and the actual code empty for the interviewee to fill in. As simple as setting person.name = 'Jeff', a trivial test to anyone with even basic JavaScript experience. I'm sorry about your poor experience interviewing. Barring a lack of understanding of any styles, coding style should not matter, that's what linting rules are for. Hopefully future companies you interview with will have a more reasonable interviewing process.
I disagree. Companies need to know these people can walk the walk. Sure, I don't expect you to know all the spec details. Googling the spec or asking questions is fine. I had one interviewee that went through a similar boot camp. The discussion portion of the interview went exceptionally well; he knew all the topics and had opinions on using certain technologies over others. It seemed like a good fit, until we got him in front of code. He struggled to do a simple object assignment in JavaScript.
To your point, any small typing mistake or mouse movements shouldn't be judged. Interviewers know you will be nervous during the interview. If they are discrediting candidates over that, they shouldn't be interviewing.