I’m not sure. I probably wouldn’t do it but there’s something admirable about it. If the CEO is a reasonable adult he cares about hiring whoever will provide the best return on investor’s income instead of doing a dance about how everyone should feel lucky to work for him. If he fails to do that, he’s failing to do his job. Of course, if the OP actually has ego problems, then that’s a good reason to strongly consider not hiring them (possibly massive negative impact on team productivity from such people).

All the shittiest managers/administrators I’ve met spend a lot of time talking up their “opportunity” and putting down the candidate/employee. It’s just grade school level manipulation from emotionally stunted adults. But if OP was fishing for it to prove a point that’s immature.

You get a better return from people who want to work for you than from people who are "not that interested". If I was hiring and a candidate first submits shitty code, and then says he's not that interested, then I'm quite likely to lose interest too. It has to be a match on both sides.

Candidates shouldn't be groveling on their knees, and any hiring manager who expects that should be avoided at all cost, because they're selecting on willingness to be abused. But it shouldn't be the other way around either; hiring an asshole is not good for the company.

I'll respond in good faith, even though I'm not sure the critiques are. The amount that you can figure out from a small code snippet someone sends you is not very much IMHO.

I'm happy to talk about code I've written, or pair or walk through complex code in an interview, or refer you to my github, but if you ask for a link to a small amount of code in your application that "makes you proud", I'll send over code that made me proud for some reason whether or not it was technically 'good code'. I explained my reasons in the application. I stand by it as code that would have been a good indicator to me of someone's ability to problem-solve if I was on the hiring end.

The second one was basically a "not interested" note, yes. I'm not going to just accept a power dynamic where someone tells me that they already have significant reservations about me, but they are going to 'give me a chance to impress them' - if other people don't mind wooing hiring managers that openly flaunt power dynamics like those, more power to them.

The whole thing just feels unprofessional, just inform them you are not interested and move on. I know programmers aren’t the most professional bunch and we disregard some conventions, but this whole article felt like the author was unwilling or unable to grasp the realities of what an employer employee relationship is.

That second quote is basically saying "I don't actually want to work for you"; even if the code was good, that would've been a rejection from me. The OP sounds like they're not looking for a job, but looking for people to kiss the ground they walk on and give them money.

While I personally respect humility over arrogance, developers are often seen as disposable resources; this seems to be a bit of response to that.

Money motivation is at the bottom of my list actually. And I don't particularly want praise either. But I want to work in /partnership/ with other human beings of many skillsets and levels that all recognize that each other have important roles to play, not for managers that use their own arrogance to implictly filter towards people that are either #1) just as arrogant as them and truly think they are the best programmers in the world or #2) people that are so humbled that they truly feel "grateful" to "get the opportunity" to spend 40 hours trying to impress someone.

There's a big difference between saying, "Hey we liked you and we also want to talk through some code you've written that you are very technically proud of, let's set up a video chat" and what was said here.

It sounds like a reversal of the language I see in many job ads. While it would generally hurt job applications, it would make sense for someone who has an abundance of job applications as a method for sorting through the possible offers. But doing this after doing a coding exercise doesn't make sense. This sounds like something on a web page aimed at recruiters, not something that should be done after one has invested time into applying.

This is what the process is like hiring those 10x programmers. Everyone says they want them but it took a year for him to find a fit.

This was incredibly weird, I'm not at all on the candidate's side on this one.

All of section (6) smacks of ... some kind of attitude problem. Yes, the system if frequently broken (but more often slow and stilted) but still -- the moment you start intentionally playing head games with people -- it's like, why bother?

Hard to have sympathy with this guy, as a result.