I generally agree with the points, but have a few places of disagreement:
> Your interviewer is only open to solving the problem ONE way
If this is someone you'll be working closely with, it's a yellow flag, but the common complaint you read here about algorithmic interviews not being the best way to evaluate someone for a job, this really just tells you how good this person is at either that problem or interviewing.
> Consistent lack of interest or low morale from interviewers
Normally, I'd agree fully, and as an interviewer, I go in with a sales hat on over my technical hat. During covid, I have no idea how to read low morale.
> based in Palo Alto...a six-figure offer definitely didn’t seem like a bad start
This is table stakes for a software engineer in the Bay Area, now. Not sure why it was worth adding.
If the interviewer has no flexibility in understanding algorithmic solutions, it means they accept that applicants spend a month or more exercising whiteboard riddles while the interviewer just compares the solution with existing notes. I think there is a valid case for whiteboard interviews, especially when the company needs to optimize code a lot.
> Your interviewer is only open to solving the problem ONE way
If this is someone you'll be working closely with, it's a yellow flag, but the common complaint you read here about algorithmic interviews not being the best way to evaluate someone for a job, this really just tells you how good this person is at either that problem or interviewing.
> Consistent lack of interest or low morale from interviewers
Normally, I'd agree fully, and as an interviewer, I go in with a sales hat on over my technical hat. During covid, I have no idea how to read low morale.
> based in Palo Alto...a six-figure offer definitely didn’t seem like a bad start
This is table stakes for a software engineer in the Bay Area, now. Not sure why it was worth adding.