I cannot take any of this seriously. - First of all, it assumes that `interviewing.io` is some sort of certification standard (which I'm willing to bet is the

I cannot take any of this seriously. - First of all, it assumes that `interviewing.io` is some sort of certification standard (which I'm willing to bet is the actual point of publicizing these 'studies' in the first place. It's 'fact' manufacturing) - Then there's selection bias about engineers actually using one platform vs the other - Touting the data set size in order to give the 'study' some credibility is a red flag for me. You can analyze millions of the same technical interview and deduce all sorts of conclusions. - The use of 'best performers' is deceitful. It means 'best performers in the interview context'. But using it in the context of where do they work, it implies something like 'the best performing engineers are at company X'. Which is bullshit. More like 'best trained engineers to pass these interviews work at company X'. Garbage. I'm flagging this as it's nothing more than self-serving marketing.