I agree with the article - some common styles of interview are designed to produce arseholes. Which, fine, if you want to employ only arseholes and people who l

I agree with the article - some common styles of interview are designed to produce arseholes. Which, fine, if you want to employ only arseholes and people who like working with arseholes that's what you should be doing. Likewise if your workflow is 90% programming trivia questions and 10% meetings. It's useful for me as a candidate, the sooner you show that the sooner I can get out of there. The bit at the end about trying to discover what candidates are good at and see them actually working... I'm shocked that so few interviews actually do that. I get that it's hard in tiny companies where you have one vaguely technical person who realises they're out of their depth and is hiring to fill that gap. Everyone else has no excuse for lousy evaluation of technical skills.