> With interviews - my claim is this: A well designed interview has a high statistical correlation between passing the interview and being useful on the job. Eg when I was interviewing we gave candidates some buggy code (with failing tests) and asked them to find and fix the problems. The ability to debug unfamiliar code in a job interview is correlated with the ability to do the same thing at work.

> If you can’t read code, I don’t want to employ you. Please practice and reapply, or find work elsewhere. This is a reasonable position - and probably the only reasonable position for an employer to hold.

> There’s lots of skills other than debugging: coding, profiling, algorithmic analysis, CS fundamentals, architecture, communicating with coworkers, etc. A mediocre interview assesses 1 of these skills. A good interview assesses 5+.

I agree with every bit of that. I'd be happy to interview at your place, if I were looking. My objection isn't even just to interviews that ask you random stuff that doesn't correlate with being useful on the job. My objection is to interviews that ask you random stuff that doesn't correlate with being useful on the job and that requires months of your time to prepare for. I think that's abusive.

I don't prepare for interviews. I just don't. My preparation is the 35 years of my career. Either that made me into someone you want, or it didn't. Sure, I'll take on your buggy code and failing tests, in an unfamiliar code base. No problem. But if an interviewer throw a bunch of leetcode questions at me, I'll fail (by the interviewer's standards). And I don't care. I'll go work for someone else.