I feel like it's quite quick actually. I think of software eng interviews as binary search type of thing. You ask a mid difficulty question. If they don't know

I feel like it's quite quick actually. I think of software eng interviews as binary search type of thing. You ask a mid difficulty question. If they don't know answer to that, you'll ask 0.25 difficulty question and so on. Although obviously, if the first question was a fluke, you'll adjust your cursor, so in the end it's not entirely binary search, but it is similar in its approach. Perhaps there is a better analogous algorithm for that. The point is that, if they can answer very well more than 75% of your questions, you increase the difficulty, otherwise you decrease. And the better they answer, the more you try to challenge and argue them. What I do hate however is leetcode. I'll avoid that completely as an interviewer, as I feel like it would only help me determine whether they are the type of people to spend hours on leetcode. I'll want to try to understand their passion to build and produce a product that solves something and provides value for their customers. Leetcode culture is contrary to that to me. To me leetcode culture is something where you play the game to increase somewhat irrelevant skills to get to a prestigious company to optimise for your total compensation. Which is fine, but it's not something I think that would be great for me to try to find best members for my team. I haven't looked for a job in a while, but I'm bringing this up because in my experience when I was the candidate I remember people being quite rigid in their questions, for example questions being predetermined, which meant they ask me non-sensically easy questions, which considering what kind of questions I had answered before it would make no sense that I wouldn't know answer to those questions. So a lot of time-wasting. Or in the other direction they could be asking similar questions in similar difficulty and area of topic, where someone clearly shows they no experience with, instead of trying to understand all talents of the candidate.