Speaking of making assumptions, you're making a lot of them.
You say "Everyone is making the assumption that the author of the post transcribed this interview instead of paraphrasing it". As a member of "everyone", I disagree.
I do suspect it's not as black and white as the article makes it out to be but the general attitude is not uncommon in tech companies. It's in fact so common it has become a bit of a meme. So I'm personally taking the article with that in mind.
> This was a culture interview, not a technical interview
Oh spare me. If a "Director of Engineering at Google", above in the thread, calls the interview "super strange" and "making [the recruiter] look like a blithering idiot", you can't start making random excuses up for Google. "It's about the culture!"
Where do you see a "Director of Engineering at Google" above claiming the interview is "super strange"? There are other (supposed) Google employees in this thread that are the source for every single one of my assertions.
Also, as a member of "everyone", how can you disagree with that statement when no one has even bothered to call out the fact that we only have one side of the story and it's the side of the story that wants our sympathies?
EDIT: I found the post you were referring to (it wasn't at the top when I first posted my responses)... The "Director of Engineering" was even saying that he doesn't buy the transcript because it's only one side of the story. That pretty much seals my point.
Your point that it's a "culture interview"? Or your point that it's probably not a verbatim transcript, which nobody argued? Or is it your point from way back that these are skills needed for a Director of Engineering, which apparently this wasn't an interview for?
My point that the author of the post misinterpreted the interview (which was apparently not at all for a Director-level position), my point that we only have one side of the story, and my point that the paraphrasing was done intentionally in such a way as to make the interviewer look bad instead of the interviewee. Or, if you want to simplify it, my point that this person is clearly not Director material, as they would like everyone to think.
Also, you're moving the goalposts here. At the time this was posted, the author of the post claimed it was an interview for Director, people were claiming that the interviewer acted exactly as written, and I, along with others, were claiming that either the author left out information, misunderstood it, or edited it.
You say "Everyone is making the assumption that the author of the post transcribed this interview instead of paraphrasing it". As a member of "everyone", I disagree.
I do suspect it's not as black and white as the article makes it out to be but the general attitude is not uncommon in tech companies. It's in fact so common it has become a bit of a meme. So I'm personally taking the article with that in mind.
> This was a culture interview, not a technical interview
Oh spare me. If a "Director of Engineering at Google", above in the thread, calls the interview "super strange" and "making [the recruiter] look like a blithering idiot", you can't start making random excuses up for Google. "It's about the culture!"