[goostavos]

>hey just went with somebody better

Yeaaaaah, that's not how any of this works. I've done 100+ interviews for MegaCorp. Who ultimately gets hired is ultimately a dice roll no matter how "data driven" we call it. Did you get a good loop? Was one of your interviewers in a bad mood? Did you end up with a hiring manager who "used to code" and now measures everyone against whether or not they use out dated OOP techniques everywhere? Ah crap, did you get Gary? That guy sucks so much. He asks "hard" questions to make himself feel good.

The sausage is what you'd expect if you remember one key thing: it's humans on the other side of the desk. They're finicky and arbitrary ceatures.

[AbsoluteCabbage]

Flashbacks to losing out on a dream job because the husband and wife interviewers had a nasty argument after a long plane flight right before the interview. Sigh.

[commandlinefan]

> Who ultimately gets hired is ultimately a dice roll

Well, I'm not sure I believe that's universally true (or even particularly common) but even if you're right, what difference does it make? You still have to be good enough not to bomb the interview but then just "hit the tables" often enough to get a lucky roll. That would be the case for any sort of interview process, whether it was live coding, an informal discussion, or tests of strength.