[dlss]

Maybe this is me having spent too much time thinking about econ, but I don't get why the analogy is backwards here. What is special about the person spending money? A car rental company is filling a large number of slots, and the renter would like to fill one. Why is that not as natural an analogy point for you?

Instead of "whoever is giving up money should do the due diligence," I would suggest you consider "both sides should do increasing due diligence as the importance of a decision increases."

From this perspective, the article is pointing out the dumbness of some due diligence methods currently being used at software companies.

[dgreensp]

Because car rental companies exist to provide a service to the people who walk into them, so we walk in expecting to be served, providing we can pay. It's a simple transaction; they get money, you get use of a car. Everyone is happy. If they start giving you the third degree, you'll be inclined to respond, "Geez, do they want my money or not?".

To walk into a job interview with the same expectation of being "served" is ridiculous. It's true that if they're smart, they will try to entice you and provide a nice experience, but primarily they are trying to decide whether to spend large amounts of time and money on you versus someone else. Most companies are not in the business of quickly and efficiently hiring as many people off the street as possible. You can be flustered by an interviewer's poor technique, but don't be impatient to receive the job offer you feel entitled to.