I feel like the majority of discussions that reach the top of HN on interviews, including this one, frame the problem in a less then ideal way. They assume a zero sum game where not getting hired is "bad". That's only true if you believe all jobs are equal good for you.
The whole discussion only makes sense if you personalize the goal and then you can use failure as a way to describe what you can do better next time with new information. From the interviewers perspective the major failure seems come from a company wide systematic failure to understand what the company needs and how a new hire might help towards that goal. They come into the interview and ask word puzzels, where they think they are clear but really there leaving out more then half. It's informative to see how much someone can infer (through questions or otherwise) but ultamatily what your gauging is the distance between you and them not if you + them = goal.
(= goal (+ you them)) vs
(- you them) or even sillier
(> you them)
I agree. I do everything I can to convince a candidate we're not right for them up front. Before either of us feel invested.
@dominicm How do you do that?
@darrell they get a screening call. I usually have a list of things to take with me too though, eg how we split responsibility, how we test, etc. Anything controversial I try and raise.
As in, they screen us.
I like that
I feel like the majority of discussions on HN frame the problem in a less than ideal way. 😉1