> In which case, screening out someone with an inflated sense of their own experience and overconfidence that the stupid person on the other end of the phone is stupid is exactly what this process is supposed to do.
This is obviously an excuse for how shitty the interviewer is. If you want to rule out people with a inflated sense of their own experience, the way you do that does NOT involve telling them they're wrong when they're obviously right ("that's not the answer I have on my sheet of paper").
Again, my claim is the interviewer did not say exactly that and this man with an inflated sense of his own qualifications is retelling the story in a way that's favorable to him.
All available evidence points to him either mishearing or mis-transcribing the question, which was actually "What is the signal sent by the kill command."
As I and others have said a few times on this thread and on 2016's thread, there are a huge number of sources of people saying "I got the same question" and "The question was 'What is the signal sent by the kill command.'"
So there are two possibilities:
1. This particular interviewer actually said "What is the name of the KILL signal," despite other interviewers regularly saying the question correctly. The entire thesis of this article is that the interviewer does not understand UNIX and is reading pre-written questions from a piece of paper, so that's an extremely unlikely mistake for the interviewer to make.
This is obviously an excuse for how shitty the interviewer is. If you want to rule out people with a inflated sense of their own experience, the way you do that does NOT involve telling them they're wrong when they're obviously right ("that's not the answer I have on my sheet of paper").