[brudgers]

That it is worth mentioning warning lights and triggers in the context of interviewing an ex-Uber suggests that there is some assessment of a unique risk. The common way to handle risk in hiring is 'no' when it comes to applicants that provide somewhat fungible rewards.

To put it another way, an ex-Uber might be asked something like "What do you think about Fowler's statement?" to assess those warning lights and triggers at a company with an orthogonal culture. And a perfectly reasonable answer might be looked at with suspicion. Not that all hires are made on such a basis.

[hn_throwaway_99]

If anyone, at any company, asked you "What do you think about Fowler's statement?" as part of the interview process, you should run from that company as fast as you can.

Any HR org that is at least 1% more competent than Uber's is alleged to be would absolutely put the kibosh on those kinds of questions. HR orgs know those kind of questions are destined to get useless responses, and they could easily lead to a situation where an interviewer could put the company into legal jeopardy.