Basically things have changed a bit in the last 5-10 years -- people have been thinking about the hiring process a lot, and adopting many practices they read ab

Basically things have changed a bit in the last 5-10 years -- people have been thinking about the hiring process a lot, and adopting many practices they read about or see other shops doing (some good, some bad). But two major, fundamental shifts have been: (1) Whiteboarding (and grilling and testing in various forms), and "committee hiring" have become much more common. Which naturally increases the chance that you'll, heaven forbid, make a mistake, not effortlessly and fluently recall something you were actually pretty big on 5-10 years ago, or just not instantaneously click with one of the interviewers. And hence, get flushed. (2) Companies have always wanted to hire the best person they can. But it kind of used to be: "So who'd we interview this week? Are they good? No red flags? OK, let's make offer. Because remember, we have actual work to do." Nowadays it seems to be: "We're awesome! So we need to hire someone who's really awesome, too. And a culture fit! Because after all, the As hire As, and the Bs hire Cs. And our culture, is like super hidebound and fragile. That guy we all liked this week? Yeah they're good, no red flags, but... I don't know... he's good but he's just not exploding with awesomeness. I mean, he solved the problem a the whiteboard, but he didn't demolish it with a one-sentence action plan for the optimal solution before I could finishing asking it. And I detected about 100ms of latency in his voice while he was explaining on the phone to me how hashtables work." And so on, until they spend another 2-3 months interviewing 8 or 10 more people, whose awesomeness is also, surprise, just a tad short of immediately and overwhelmingly evident. Until they finally break down and make an offer to the last one who seems, well, decent enough. How to win? The trick is to be that last one they interview, I guess.