You are the candidate and hold equal power. In the thought process you had "I think I should terminate this interview." If it ever gets to a point you are uncomfortable due to rudeness, leave. Sure, in a big faang world you may never have interaction with that person, but them being on the panel has a chance they would be your boss, peer, or in your org some way.

Toxic people can ruin what would otherwise be good careers. Alternatively, this can also be a huge indicator a company tolerates and promotes this behavior. To me, while it's possible, that this was a once and rare thing that only this person has done... Screw betting my career on the least likely possibility.

Their recruiters continue to reach out to me to this day, not a snowball's chance in hell.

Contrast this with a scenario at Dropbox where I was underprepared for a datastructures question (BitSet). While the interviewer was mildly taunting me, he at least was gracious enough to give hints and talk me through the solution as it ended. I knew I wasnt getting the role, but at least I learned something that day.

* not that rudeness in youth is acceptable or expected but a lack of life experience can lead to a lack of perspective or realization that life is much longer and you only get one reputation

Some are trying to see you fail. They're looking for a reason to say "no". They tend to not be of any help on a problem, will often try to find ways to trick you. They also tend to have an ego problem -- you need to prove to them that you're worthy of joining the team.

The other class of interviewers are those that want you to succeed. They will answer questions, and help clarify things. Even if you are unqualified for the role, and they know it, they still want to help you along so they can see your best work. People that shut down when they get nervous tend to open up to these interviewers. They also tend to be the people that are more pleasant to work with.

So ~14 years ago - after about a year at Microsoft, I was encouraged to assist with interviewing new candidates. At that time, there was no official guide/rulebook for interviewing, but I was told unofficially;

"We hire people with a solid technical base, who may not know EVERY thing at the time of interview, because we really want to hire on their future potential".

"If a candidate is doing poorly, don't be rude - if they asked where they failed, tell them - because, they may very well interview again in 6-months, and if they show a significant improvement, they may well get hired then."

"Any technology they list on their resume is 'fair game' - they had better know it, and if you have direct experience in a niche technology that they list, grill them to see if they are being 'honest'"

And - we were often paired with other technical interviewers, and everyone kept detailed notes. A single veto by any interviewer during any of the multiple phone sessions (and/or eventual in-person interviews) would end that stage of the process for that candidate.

It worked well - I interviewed more than one person who didn't make the cut in the first round of tech screen calls, but 8-months later - they did - and ended-up being very valuable members of our group.

However - there were definately other interviewers that were basically trying to trick the candidate at every step of the process - they were not some of our better team members and honestly, should not have been involved in interviewing.

Such a strange stance for MS to take (IMHO). I've got 20+ years experience in lots of different languages and different technologies. I've been looking for a new job and have been brushing up on skills for interviewing. I just don't think it's possible for me to be ready to be grilled by a current expert on 15+ languages that I've shipped high quality, production code. The flip side is to only list the three I can take a grilling on today on my resume? It seems like a pretty short sighted approach. Maybe they have moved on in this stance?

If a candidate lists multiple languages on their resume, I'll often ask them to do a compare and contrast -- what do they think are the strengths and weaknesses of the languages? What did you use language X for? Do you think language Y would have been better/worse/same to attack the same problem?

I'm not looking to trip them up, just find out if their resume is an accurate reflection of their experience.

I was surprised that they approached me because the team works primarily in C# and Go, and I've been doing JVM languages mainly, and only a small amount of Go, but the interviewer emphasised that they want people who can learn and enjoy learning.

They then asked me to choose a language I know well and describe a strength and weakness of it.

It was a really good interview experience tbh.

I would say the port/protocol memorization may be required depending on what job you are interviewing for. If its for a tech support job, maybe the ports/protocol question is pointless.

I have no respect for such people. Not because of their lack of "niceness", but because that kind of behaviour betrays a lack of technical confidence.

That remark isn't just about interviewers; it applies to all colleagues. More generally, I tend to respect people who are smart enough to know what they don't know, and honest enough to admit it.

Yes agreed. I've seen this in interviewing and in teaching. People who are insecure make it about how smart they are, people who are confident make it about helping others.

I considered it a privilege to have the potential to influence progress in someone else's career.

I am very much in the latter category of wanting to see folks succeed.

We had one candidate that didn't have experience in the particular technology we were interviewing for, but I could tell he was highly intelligent, just very nervous.

I asked him questions on another complex technology that he'd listed on his resume, to try and draw out some of his thinking on his problem solving skills.

He did great.

I suggested to him that he should come to us with questions, and interview us as much as we were interviewing him. I wanted to see him get the job.

He didn't… at first.

The others on the panel didn't give him their vote. We'd picked someone else that ended up flaking out.

I went back and tried to make the case that we should extend him an offer.

They ended up doing so… dude was an absolute ROCKSTAR.

Please be the one that wants people to succeed. Interviewing is hard, people.

That's how I go about it. Even unprepared candidates can return someday with more experience/knowledge, or apply to a different position where they can succeed - or letting their friends/acquaintances know about the role.

Also, as we can see in this post, a bad interview experience can really taint a company's image, which can to some degree prevent people from applying

a) I think as interviews as auditions rather than exams.

b) I try to find someone's edges, so that the hiring manager has better information. In other words, if I were to give a candidate full marks, I've probably failed as interviewer.

Consider: You're hiring for a senior systems software development role, and the candidate doesn't know what an instruction is.

etc.

Something trivially google-able is like not knowing the syntax for generating permutations of a sequence in Python. But not knowing the idea of permutations would not be trivially google-able.

I did spot them the malloc() call (I certainly would not have wanted the interview to get bogged down for that), but yes, I did hold not knowing that against them in my evaluation.

That is, local LAN only, with no access to the internet, and no internet-capable "personal electronic devices" or cellular phones permitted in the development area.

You had whatever paper documentation you brought yourself, what was in your head, and whatever was in the /documents directory for that project.

It's a different work mindset. I've since moved to a sysadmin position, running a closed network. When programmers decided they couldn't hack being cut off from the net, they'd quit. Dealing with vendors who signed a contract swearing their product didn't need internet access to install or function, when it won't even complete the install without internet access, is more awkward. Particularly when we call the lawyers in. Because that's why we tediously explained the while "no internet" thing in the contract. That they signed. No, not even for just a few minutes. And by the way, can you explain why your installer times out trying to contact servers in three different countries? Our network admin is curious...

It definitely tests your skill and you can identify who can solve problems on their own. Hopefully you have an additional network that you can do research on.

If what they Google would provide them the correct answer, I'm OK with someone who knows how and when to Google something. Those that don't think about researching themselves usually end up asking me in-person. And I usually then ask them if they have done any research themselves.

here's the basic operating model.

you have a controller but unlike a typical web controller, you are rally controlling the lifecycle for a long lived server process thats specific to the user in a session. you get callbacks for the startup where you can load data structures into the session. You also have functions that let you write frontend components from the backend similar to server side react.

Here's where it gets interesting. The frontend maintains a long lived websocket connection. if you change a piece of data on the backend, the frontend will automatically update to reflect the changes. additionally, you can set event triggers in your html that trigger server side callbacks from which you can update that server side data.

so you might be asking yourself, "big deal, meteor does that"

The big deal of course is that you're using elixir, a mostly functional language with immutable data structures and concurrency abstractions that make node look amateur hour. Spawning thousands of one off short lived persistent sessions, one for each user, that each have a websocket connection is a trivial task for the beam virtual machine that phoenix runs on. Scaling the backend for this is trivial compared to ding it in node which is what meteor is doing. The underlying platform is just a better fit for what meteor is trying to solve. Every thread has its own heap of memory and is isolated from others. You have no such guarantee in meteor unless you dedicate an entire OS process for each user, a task that will be expensive and nontrivial)

of course, its a backend process. so phoenix liveviews can also do a few other interesting things. need to upload an image or perform a background task? have your callback send its process id to the background worker and the background worker can send a message back to your session enabling you to update your session data. the frontend will automatically reflect the change. by comparison, tailing mongodb's oplog is child's play. If you can have your data source emit events on changes, you can plug it into elixir's pubsub system and accomplish the same reactivity in a live view.

Oh yea, and fly.io already works with both meteor and live view's limitation of needing the physical machine to be close to the users for keeping the latency down.

but to get a better handle, here's some interesting reading

https://www.phoenixframework.org/blog/the-road-to-2-million-...

https://expertise.jetruby.com/websockets-how-to-rails-action...

I could tell you the result but the difference is so stark, you might think I'm exaggerating

People change, they get given second chances. I wouldn't mind giving a company a second chance, especially after they probably had a real kick-in-the-nuts because of their approach to your interview, since it most likely wasn't that easy to find another qualified MeteorJS dev.

I wouldn't even interview there after hearing the story.

It was refreshing to be interviewed like I would be a valued addition to their team with my unique skills rather than quizzed on the information.

I frequently see comments like this on HN and I don't really buy it.

When every job opening has several qualified candidates, and it can take several applications to land a new job, I still think the employer has more power.

At the very least for the last half year, I think developers may have an "upper hand".

I had to get no less than 6 offers before I got one that was reasonable in my last search. 6. I had done about a dozen onsites and dozens of phone screens at that point. This was just a year ago. I expect the same this year - if not worse because of the market doing so poorly.

...

Then...up your pay? It doesn't take an Einstein-level IQ to figure that one out.

Developers might have an upper hand at salary negotiation, but actually landing an offer? Nah. Employers still have the power.

The candidates don't control the comp you offer. Claiming that those darned candidates have the upper hand because everyone else pays better is a bad faith argument. Not that you can tell your boss that, I'm sure.

This is the mentality that gets you bullied. There are more openings than qualified people, and businesses can't make money without employees. No one is doing you a favour by giving you a job, they are literally making off your back.

The interviewee loses a day of PTO, or continues to be unemployed (and usually in a financially precarious situation).

Imbalanced outcomes means imbalanced power.

At the end of the day, the company wants to hire you and you probably want to be hired. I generally urge people to think of this as a cooperation exercise and not a power struggle.

Interviewers should treat interviewees with dignity and kindness, even when the interviewee is doing poorly. Interviewees should be gracious to the interviewer, even when they have decided to work elsewhere. The first side to stop being cooperative loses.

The above does not however apply to salary negotiation.

No, at the end of the day, the company wants to hire SOMEBODY. That somebody is not necessarily you, hence the interview. You're being compared to all the other candidates.

Maybe this is different late in your career when you've got 10+ years experience under your belt, but there are a LOT of candidates in that "3-5 year" experience point.

Any "adversarial interview" techniques are a big red flag, imo. They also make it easy to quickly recognise places with a toxic culture, so there's not need to beat yourself up if you fail. You dodged a bullet, plus now have an excuse to rant with your friends over a pint!

Hence, my favourite interviews (regardless of the side I was on) were the one when we had a chance to spend a day working with the candidate.

Yeah, and the company continues being understaffed for what they want to do, and often the interviewer is one of the people on that team who needs more people.

(no it's not exactly the same)

I don't believe this.

The only way this is true is if there are a lot of openings at companies that are going to pay significantly under market and can't figure out why nobody is accepting their offers, even when candidates tell them.

Based on another comment [0], maybe this is actually the case.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31341966

Layoffs and hiring freezes at big tech might change things in the next few months though

That's very easy to explain within a framework of there being lots of available workers and few available positions.

Employers post hiring ads, get responses, and conclude that posting ads works and they should keep doing it.

Job seekers post hire-me ads, get no responses, and conclude that posting ads doesn't work and there's no reason to do it.

This answer could change your conclusion.

Usually I feel like interviews are staged in a way to put Interviewees in a tense, or underdog sort of way. From the moment you walk in you feel like you are in their hands. I am always somewhat nervous and tense in a interview, but that could be more my mentality than anything, but I can see where they are coming from.

In an ideal world we feel equal and have the opportunity to walk out but when you really need a job or have had troubles finding one it can feel pretty powerless.

Sorry to ramble a bit.

N number of candidates enter that month's job market, companies are able to offer N number of positions.

At the end of the hiring cycle, they make the N-to-N matches and execute the cycle.

A candidate can (and must) have several offers from different companies, just as companies have several candidates for each position.

Depends on what role you're interviewing for. C# dev? Probably. What about full-stack Javascript dev? Totally lopsided in favor of the developers. I have, on average, a dozen emails from recruiters looking for full-stack JS devs. I barely do JS work any more, but the everything is so scarce, if companies can just find someone who's mildly fluent in JS, they'll hire and train you - its that bad in the Midwest where I live. The entry level roles are pretty competitive, but anything mid to senior level there aren't enough people to go around right now.

You just have to know your market and when you have leverage. When you have leverage, you can really take advantage. Don't like the people interviewing you? Wait a day or so. You like a company? Use your leverage to get more vacation, higher salary, play companies against each other to get more for yourself.

Knowledge is power, simple as that.

It's easy to name a bunch of names that everyone on HN has heard of, and you can bet anything that in job negotiations they are the ones who have the power. Companies have to come courting them, not the other way around.

Overall, people seeking work have less overall power and a generally poor position, unless they have saved or earned enough to not require the work.

They may be a gatekeeper for the job, but you are the gatekeeper for your time. Hiring a person is a mutual decision. Since job descriptions are usually quite vague on some important details about the team and company, applying for the job is simply expressing interest in the job, not a confirmation that you would take it if offered.

You just never know who you may find on the other side of the table!

Every applicant also has several qualified companies they can work for.

It's not totally equal, but if your mindset is not peers meeting to see if there's a good fit, your interviewing experience is going to be worse than it could be.

Not only does 6-figures of cash get burned, but you're back at square one needing to find a new hire, not to mention your project now being behind schedule because you expected work from someone, and now the existing team has to go through another interviewing spree.

The employee may have left a job where they were relatively secure - maybe they even relocated for the role. Now they're back on the job market and their employability has taken a major hit. Not to mention that being fired is often a very traumatic experience with all the health consequences that entails. Seems a lot more serious than a project being pushed back a couple months.

(btw, "bad" according to which criteria? a lot of the time when I hear this phrase thrown around it's a smokescreen for unrealistic expectations or an exclusionary team culture)

If that were true companies would give out huge raises to keep employees. They don't.. they prefer that people leave and new people get hired by them.

No one wants a bad hire because it taints their brand at the org. Having someone else recommend someone means someone else takes the blame. Referrals get hired quickly.

Ya, you really have to pay attention to red flags, you'll be working (stuck) with them for at least a year, possibly more, and you will depend on them for your livelihood and family's survival.

Not during interviews, but sometimes I close my eyes when I want to focus intently on what the speaker is saying. I used to twirl my pencil.

I try and give both interviewers and interviewees the benefit of the doubt.

Walking out without saying anything seems pretty rude, but I don’t know all the circumstances. Laughing in your face seems much worse. It’s a two way interview. If it doesn’t feel right, hopefully you’ve got other options and don’t need to proceed. Or get an offer (if it isn’t going to take 5 more rounds of interviewing, you’ve already committed time to the interview, consider whether it’s worth taking it to completion) and then raise concerns and listen to how your concerns are addressed.

Why is that? Do you mean it looks bad in the CV if you leave too soon?

That's one thing, also life happens where it's more beneficial to stay someplace to keep the income coming in than it is to spend hours off the clock finding and preparing a different job. Say a medical problem, or you need to pay to fix damage to your house, or a spouse lost a job, etc.

1. Either trying to kick a cocaine habit, and was still going through the motions with something that looked like cocaine

2. He was going to offer the coke to OP and see if he was a culture fit.

Was a very useful interview for me, and I've told a few old colleagues who were approached by the company also about it, so it saved them time too.

Any company might have a random asshole pop up into a chance encounter. What that random asshole does is less telling than what everyone else around them does to address it.

It was a bad experience, but the other two interviewers were very nice and I really wanted to work for this non-profit, so I sent a follow-up email apologizing for upsetting the Lead Architect so much, saying that I thought it was just a misunderstanding, that there were multiple correct answers, and provided some documentation to further explain why I answered the way I did.

I got a job offer that afternoon, and two weeks after I started they fired the Lead Architect. That same week, I went out to lunch with the team, where one of the interviewers told everyone about how I made the Lead Architect look so stupid during the interview and that I was so incredibly nice about it that they knew they had to hire me. Turns out it was a workplace where everyone highly valued politeness and the Architect had been antagonizing and bullying everyone for years. Ended up being one of the friendliest places I've ever worked.

I bet that lunch made you feel great!

Customer service persona, I like it.

«“If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”

Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.»

In other words, cause them suffering by being super nice to them.

Be nice with the intention to harm.

This is so twisted.

In my book kindness means literally wishing good from the depth of my heart.

Its ok to continue the interview but its also ok to finish, leave and never return. They're as much under investigation for fit as you are. Hold them to your standards.

You got a glimpse of what working with them would be like in future. I'd say you found them lacking. Can you imagine a code review with that person?

All that assumes that the interviewers' behavior was "just" rude, if the cross line like sexism, racism and similar thing the solution is standing up and leaving. Their is only so much you can learn from abusive people.

The interviewer may still tell people that you gave up halfway through, but if anyone else is listening or the interviewer is accidentally honest, it is more likely to trigger change by emphasizing that the company is losing you rather than you are losing the company.

I would also suggest this; it signals to the other interviewers that they just lost a potential candidate because of John Doe's behavior. They might take action, but they need to understand the consequence of having that guy on the team, or at least in the interview room.

You would waste your own time, too, with this approach.

I was asked to show up at 8am, but I was not told I would not be leaving the office until 6pm.

Also, I was told it was a direct hire - when I got the offer for something like $35/hr in a major city as a mid level programmer, I sorta lost it on the recruiter. No vacation, purely contract work through the recruiter.

More or less lied to during the entire process. I guess some candidates are happy to get a job and just put up with it? It has to work sometimes...

* "We have this amazing CTO / CIO / VP Role."

* "What's the pay range for this role?"

* "We pay market rates"

* "I'm currently making $X at my fancy FAANG role. Can you beat that?".

* "Oh. Nevermind".

It's helped, but there are still false promises made.

Sadly yes and they don't have a choice, but anyone accepting that shit who do have a choice are lowering the standard for everyone else.

I would have had to move across the country and they recently laid off 1000 (50%) of their staff, so in retrospect I figure I dodged a bullet, but wow!

My co-founder paused, and very calmly said something like "X, if this isn't a good use of your time then tell us so we don't waste ours, either". He immediately put his feet down, his phone face down on the table, and politely paid attention the rest of the pitch. He obviously didn't invest but we walked out of there with our heads held high.

We could’ve pitched to ourselves on a blank zoom call and come out more confidente. The worst part, we spent a bit of time on that presentation and really tried to make it less boring.

Fuck you Icehouse ventures.

The NZ startup funding scene is bare and so the guys with money now think they're gods.

But very true, ultimate beta move.

I have a little tingling sensation that we could use more women in positions of power in tech.

We might benefit from slightly different ways of thinking about working with fellow human beings.

(In case that wasn't clear, I agree with your point. I'm just a bit sad about the language and mindset you're describing!)

If you look up the origin of the phrase "shit test", you will find a lot of irony in this statement :)

When i worked at Tesla everyone was on their laptops answering emails/ working in meetings. I don't think it takes your full attention to listen to someone, but i guess it's a bit different if you were just pitching him and not a room full of people.

I disagree to this with every fiber of my being. If you're multitasking doing something that requires anything beyond mechanical tasks then you're not really listening.

I challenge you to actually try and listen to a person with a completely silenced mind. It's surprisingly hard.

I often listen to podcasts and videos on 2x or even 3x speed because the speaker talks so slow.

When they talk slow and the amount of information they're relaying is relatively low or mostly familiar, my mind tends to drift and I can actually multitask relatively well.

It's when I speed up the rate at which they're speaking that it becomes more difficult to multitask, until at last I really need to concentrate in order to follow what they're saying and then my focus remains glued to the speaker.

That said, I do think it's rude to focus on anything else when one is interviewing someone. They should have your full attention, or you shouldn't be there.

- During a retro decide to have a quota of meetings left early/skipped as a team action/working agreement. - Keep inviting people as you are, but mark everyone as optional. - No phones, no laptops (unless they're for taking notes)

Rapidly changing from topic to topic but having everyone in a conference room while everyone is working is highly effective. People can jump in and give input on the topic they were half listening too. How many times someone has said "Oh, i have a supplier for that" or "I wrote a script for that".

The above example is really off topic from "He was on his phone while we were pitching" but i think it applies to the fact that smart people are actually really good at multi-tasking, bad a social ques and norms but you shouldn't take it as a sign of disrespect.

I'd just ask if this is a good time. Otherwise, we can reschedule.

Then, I can decide later whether I will actually reschedule.

It is never a good idea to add shading like that.

> perceived power differential

Not really. It is game theory.

You earn nothing by throwing shade apart from emotional satisfaction.

It is only beneficial to go above and beyond to ensure nobody feels any shade to anybody. You never what you will need in the future.

> everyone's time is equally valuable

Trying to repeat a tautological statement is a shade, IMO.

If you never see the person again and you've held your head high you will feel more confident.

If you play game theory the emotional damage might haunt your next interview.

Getting revenge emotionally is a passing pleasure with no real benefit. There is only possible downsides.

This is why high EQ people are generally more successful.

When they directly insult you during the interview, that should be the end. If you're willing to tolerate abuse during the interview process, you should expect the culture to persist and you advertise that you're okay with it.

Respect of my time and the time of those around me is important to me. I had a recruiter that didn't understand this concept. He was representing a major media company that seemed like it'd be interesting to work for. But since the recruiter advertised to me that he couldn't care less about my time, I took that as an ongoing issue at the company and I ended the process.

It's just not worth it, especially when you have other potential opportunities that may still be interesting. Respect is important and if they can't respect you at the interview, they will not respect you in the job.

One can arrive at that place earlier in life, and will given mentors and a robust set of early experiences.

And the crazy thing is, knowing that power dynamic means you can, likely, command more compensation.

I think the worst interview process I've been through is when I did 8 interviews at a company, 6 of which were technical, and then was not hired (overqualified apparently...I'm old enough to start encountering ageism and all that). Such a monumental waste of time.

The interview process should be a conversation, not an interrogation.

If it isn't, I probably don't want to work there.

If time comes up, I let them know I have the time needed and would not have asked if I didn't.

Do they have the time needed? If not, why?

Answers to that can make sense and can bias the session toward a more productive exchange.

"Gentlemen, it's clear to me that we're not a good fit here. Let's not waste anymore of our time"

Say it 10 times in front of a mirror or something and just push the mental button when you need to.

"If you find yourself speaking with a person who does not make sense, in all likelihood, that person is not real. Allow the person to finish their thought then provide an excuse why you cannot continue talking."

https://thestanleyparable.fandom.com/wiki/Dialogue#Choice_Vi...

For my part, I prefer "amigos" in all but the most formal contexts, except ... that's arguably not gender neutral either.

This is all just flow and it depends on the speaker. Having a bit of a lead in can help some people. Gets in the way for others.

This is all just flow and it depends on the speaker. Having a bit of a lead in can help some people. Gets in the way for others.

Not sure how that happened.

"My noble friends"?

"Good people"?

Does not quite feel the same. Perhaps it is my linguistic habits too ingrained

[Not an English native] Isn't that a little too informal? Bugs Bunny came to mind.

Is "ladies and gentlemen" somehow out of fashion?

Some women get pissed at being called a "lady".

It is a minefield, but better than using low English phrases like: "folks", or "guys" (that is a gender neutral slang term in my world)

Always use high English when talking business. Formal language every time.

Fuck the cunts!

Gentlefolx

IMO this effectively terminates all possibilities. IMO it might be more effective to say a break in the convo adding something tailored to what you're feeling/observing.

"I'm getting the sense that something's off here. "

Distracted/Disinterested - "Is there something more pressing you need to attend to?"

Rude - "Can you tell me about your company values and how you treat eachother?"

Superiority - "Can you tell me a bit about how CompanyX mentors and develops new talent?"

etc -- put it out to them assuming the best, but implying you're now interviewing them about their qualities.

They didn't like the not finishing part. I got an email later on saying thanks but no thanks. I asked them if they wanted to see the work they asked me to do. That piqued their interest. They then asked if I was still interested.

I said, "No, I think we are done here."

Assholes are a major red flag. You really need to avoid them. Your life will be much better without them. Look up the companies on glassdoor, search for the people you speak to ahead of time, see if there are any major issues. You'd be surprised at how easy some of these are to find with careful digging. Though you need to be adept at filtering disgruntled people seeking reputational revenge versus specific critiques.

Perhaps have a harsher/rude version in case you see someone not respecting your time and are being rude.

"Folks, it's clear to me that I don't want to work here. I don't want to waste any more of my time".

Such disagreeable situations call for calm and playful assertiveness. You catch the opposite party off guard by politely calling them out and exposing them for being an asshole. You leaving thereafter also strips them of the opportunity to correct their immediate behavior and thus, robs them of a chance to demonstrate that it was, in fact, a misunderstanding. That can be quite frustrating, since most rude people really like to project the veil of being decent human beings and hate the idea of someone thinking less of them.

I might make a quick crack like: "Wow. Must be important. Anyhow, let's get back to what we were doing." in order to see what the reactions of others are and whether I get an apology. But I might not. Shrug.

However, the probability of my taking a job there would be close to zero after that. It's just a huge red warning flag.

Practice interacting and being in a professional conversant situation without reading too deeply into what you think is going on for the other person. Accept the situation on face value with the best and worst interpretations in mind, but not in effect. That's good for negotiating too. If you feel on the defensive because of an implied power relation, or misunderstanding, hold that thought, wait and see, it could get interesting.

Since you allocated the time anyway, make the best of a recon opportunity. If the interviewer is being rude, the fact that you are unruffled makes you the bigger person. Smile politely and you may unbalance them. Save any grand decision for the end.

In my experience, most people do pay a lot of attention to nonverbal communication… and they're really awful at interpreting it. Basically taking any vague body motion as evidence in favour of their preconceived ideas :/

My communications got noticably smoother when I made a conscious decision to ignore the majority of nonverbal communication; and if it seemed like somebody was trying to say something, I’d explicitly say “Hey, I get the impression that you’re <angry/sad/etc>, am I reading that correctly?” and go from there rather than assuming.

I like this and am going to try it!

Any human being should understand.

  * Other interviewers don't say anything -> ask what's up, and whether this means the interview is over. Point out that you don't feel comfortable continuing like this.
  * Other interviewers show they are "on your side", i.e. as confused as you and don't endorse that behavior -> continue the interview, and maybe later try to figure out what happened. Consider it a yellow card (in Football speak). Make sure that you don't ever work with that specific person.

And leaving when the "interview wasn't going well", makes me picture OP struggling at the whiteboard and somebody not wanting to interrupt him. Sometimes people have to leave. To me, this fits into the category of devs often being unthinking rather than actively rude, and those are completely different categories to me.

I feel like we too often ascribe malice to people for what are often just cultural differences.

They were interrupting me constantly during the whiteboarding. That was actually one of the other things I didn't like about the team. They wouldn't give me time to fully answer their question before butting in and telling me how they would do it. Half the time I felt like they were solving it for me. When I expressed my dismay they told me they didn't actually want a solution from me but were just trying to determine whether they could work with me or not, because that's how they came up with solutions at their company.

In any case, they clearly had no problem with interrupting me. So when the person who had laughed at me later just got up and walked out during the interview (after the whiteboarding) without saying a word, it did seem kind of rude.

I've been in lots of interviews throughout my life, and never once did anyone act remotely like this.

Of course, I could have misinterpreted them, and maybe their laughter was good-natured (it seemed condescending to me). Maybe they had some good reason to leave in the middle of the interview, but they could have just excused themselves.

I had good feedback too! It was a sort of take on a sorting/search problem with a ton of inserts if I recall. Each loop I had, I was reallocating the size of the array by 1 or so. They pointed out, hey, we actually know the size up front right? Let's just allocate the perfect amount right up front.

The better other interviews I had weren't whiteboarding as much as talking through a problem. One is the famous "Urinal Algorithm". you walk into a bathroom with 10 urinals. Where do you stand? No right or wrong answer there. Now you walk in as a second person.. where do you stand?

A second was a sort of "Whats the minimum number of steps you can take to determine where an element is in an array?". you know getting 'hotter/colder' like the kids game, but you can jump around. It's not stated in all algorithmic terms, but you can figure it out with a bit of grasping around and its important for me to see someones process than it is to memorize an algorithm.

it forces a junior person to think through a problem, with some guided help and as a more senior person now, i see that's more valuable in assessing if a junior person can fit in with your style of teaching.

I would say that has a certain logic, too and maybe all in all you were just not a good fit for that company culture. Not that you lacked skills, but simply that your social norms are not compatible with that company (the company seems special, though)

It seems both parties should have ended the interview more early.

I want to address this quote because I’ve been this guy, and I’ve had to train myself out of habits like these. When one acts without thinking the results are often quite rude. Not thinking through your actions and the impact those actions will have on others is itself rude!

Now, I don’t mean to ascribe malice here either, but you can be quite rude without malice. Intent matters, and its worse with malice. But simply being “absent minded” is also rude! Good people acknowledge it, apologize and move on. Some people dig in their heels and won’t concede. YMMV. :)

Once walked out of a big meeting in frustration with a bunch of upper microsoft partners. The head of ops said something like "Well the only guy who actually knows what's going on just left. so the meeting is over" (at a fortune 500).

I was an asshole. the whole team was assholes. We burnt out after about 18 months and 4 acquisitions.

I don't want to be that person anymore

But god damn do other humans make it hard.

The others completely ignored it and acted like nothing unusual was happening... though I did sense that one of them was uncomfortable when the interviewer who had laughed at me just got up and walked out.

The person who was rude might have been in a situation where he didn't want to hire someone but was compelled to, so his reaction might have been an unskillful projection of not wanting to go through the process. The others could very well have been mortified to the point of inaction or pretending it didn't happen. There's no way they could justify the behavior of their colleague.

In any case, yeah, it's a sure sign of a toxic environment. That said, if the OP was in the right head-space, he could have used it as an opportunity for humor to take the edge off and help him and the others feel better.

Good responses are, on one side of spectrum, they think it's funny and interesting. In the middle (also good responses) they or ask why or politely disagree. On the not so good, they politely disagree but think you're stupid without saying it. Then, out of all those response options, if they pick being rude, then you have a very strong indicator.

If they're discussing alternative music, I say "uh, i like Taylor Swift". If they're discussing cars, I'd say I love minivans ("they're so useful!").

After reading the OP comment, saying my favorite language is Scheme is one I might try when talking programmers haha. In this case, I don't know anything about Scheme, so I'd see their reaction and just say I was just joking.

That said, I've had several interviews I'd concluded I wasn't interested quite early in the process. In one case I wrapped relatively quickly, and immediately told the recruiter I was not in the least interested. In another, the situation wasn't hostile, but was so bizzare I continued the interview simply to try to understand what the heck was going on.

It would be extraordinarily rare for an interview to pose a direct threat, so continuing with a viewpoint that the experience is simply practice doesn't hurt. I've also had other staff who'd interviewed me and then left that position contact me with other offers, so from a networking perspective, the experience can still be useful.

There were other opportunities I should have passed on but did not. Having additional options is extraordinarily useful. Those are among my regrets.

Interview was conducted by a recently-hired, recently-graduated (and very fresh-out-of-school) developer.

The business prop just didn't make sense.

After about 15--20 minutes, I was just trying to make sense of the situation / why they were even at the firm.

I watched for further developments from the company for a few years, I'm not aware that anything ever came of it, so at least this one time my sense that this could never pan out was in fact correct.

(Stupid ideas often have a much longer runway than seems remotely possible, especially when money also gets stupid.)

I don't recall the name of the company any more.

They were in search space, and are neither alphabetic or waterfowl-inclined.

Yes, what was so bizarre?

Before I could decline the position in the system, they called me and offered the job. I said something to the effect of "thanks but I'm don't think it was a good fit. Good luck in the search". Then he started pressing me for why I'm turning it down. I told him I didn't think I would get enough support/growth from the tech lead if they can't even take time for the interview (also it made me think the team might be overworked).

Then the manager called my current manager. Both managers couldn't understand why I turned it down. How? How can they not understand that even after I explained it?

So in summary, I finished the interview and declined the offer. I would have withdrawn my application but didn't get to it fast enough.

No need for any further explanation, no need for excuses, just simply pack your stuff calmly and leave.

Other unrelated career advice (after 15+ years of experience):

1. Don't participate in any abusive/toxic behavior (even if all employees are doing it)

2. Document abusive behavior (emails, texts, etc) with screenshots whenever possible (especially if it involves you)

3. Try to quit professionally whenever possible (provide no feedback or very little ad give a notice), in cases where you _know_ you absolutely can't mentally/physically take it anymore, then leave immediately (i.e NEVER put your health in danger, all the legalities, logistics, etc can be dealt with later; even in extreme situations)

4. Never overwork yourself, your compensation has nothing to do with your effort.

5. Don't constantly criticize the code base, especially if you are new, you don't know the history yet and many people have emotional attachment to their code.

6. If you want to play the office politics (for whatever reason, e.g raises, extra vacation time, etc), find out who are the _bigger_ decision makers and make sure they are aware of YOUR contributions. Don't burn the midnight oil, thinking they will care, that's not how it works; they need to constantly hear your name and ideas.

7. Office romance is NOT worth it _most_ of the time; however if you are going to take this route, make arrangements to be able to leave the company if necessary.

8. Don't talk behind other people's backs, don't partake in excessive drinking or become _too_ attached/close to your coworkers (especially with their family lives). Always maintain a healthy boundary, even if you genuinely think some of your coworkers could become your life-long friends.

9. Use spaces instead of tabs.

10. Your workmates are not your friends. Your friends are your friends.

and

11. The way a company shows it appreciates you is mainly, not only, through money. (Related to 10) Having fun "team building" activities in otherwise non working time is not them showing appreciation.

Mainly you want to leave a good impression on the other people in case you meet them elsewhere in the future and only show a lot of initiative fixing something like that if you are being hired in a role that actually focuses a bit on those soft skills.

Personally, I once got far too involved in discussions with HR at a place where it clearly wasn't going to work out and they are high enough volume that it never mattered.. but I would prefer to have practiced the skills of never showing my hand and continuing along to learn more about their part of industry.

The minute I suspected any kind of inappropriate questioning, I used to just get up, thank them for their time and walk out. If you're getting stupid questions thrown at you, the interview is pretty much a lost cause anyway, so why waste time?!

A little later, I discovered an even more enjoyable way to end a "lost cause" interview, that can repay to the interviewer some of the discomfort they caused you.

Once you sense the interview is going south, and the interviewer is unnecessarily enjoying putting you under pressure, as a final resort, request that someone from HR be called to observe the interview. Even better if you have the HR reps number, so you can call them directly! Say that you feel that the methods being used in the interview are inappropriate and unnecessarily pressurising. It's no good sending an email after - you need to strike before the interview is over, while the iron's hot.

It really changes the mood in a beautiful way, and lets you get your own back on power-tripping trash bags. You obviously won't get the job, but that's probably for the better, given the trashy people you'd be working with!

Note: I worked in finance, where horrible interviews are sadly quite common.

One of my good friends is an analog custom layout expert in Cadence Virtuoso and its built in scripting language SKILL is a version Scheme / Lisp. If you told him that your favorite language was Scheme he would probably try to hire you just for that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadence_SKILL

~20 years later, I should have politely left after one of the sessions. I should have found the hiring manager, told him that "I don't see myself working out well here," and then given much more candid feedback to the recruitment agency.

But also, from that experience, I've learned to guide candidates more if they don't give me the answer I'm looking for. Specifically, if a candidate writes what I think is a sub-optimal solution, I'll say something like "can you make it faster?" or "can you make it more robust?" I never expect a candidate to read my mind the first time, especially if the candidate is feeling overwhelmed.

If I was in your situation, I probably wouldn't have walked out right away. If I was turned off the company, I'd have stayed until a break between sessions. If I was still interested or curious, I'd have discussed this particular employee with the hiring manager or HR rep.

I've only "walked out" of an interview once; it was a phone screen and it very quickly was obvious that I wouldn't be happy there. I told the interviewer that I really liked their product, (I really did,) and I wished them luck. (I really did wish them good luck too.)

Now, I'm not advocating being an asshole. But when working with top people in high pressure environments it certainly helps if you can deal with assholes. It is a bit reminiscent of Postel's law: Be strict in what you send, but tolerant in what you accept.

In this case, it could be that there was some other important meeting the person had to attend, and didn't want to interrupt the interview process with an explanation or goodbye.

If you conclude that this is not the environment you want to work in, fair enough, and concluding the interview politely at that point would certainly have been an option - it seems that the organisation and you were not a good fit anyway.

Watch the walkback.

Yes, do this. Walk. The behavior is unacceptable and tells a terrible story about the company culture.

Perhaps if the remaining interviewers apologized immediately, you could reconsider, but probably not.

During the second one, I mentioned that this seemed a lot like the first one, but, did it anyway, a different way. During the third one, I literally just used the same code/approach I did on the first one.

During the fourth one, I refused and said, "Hey, this...isn't for me." and then had two weeks of HR emailing me almost every day asking if I'd reconsider.

I mean...not you or me or probably most people on HN...but it happens.

Just be polite about it. Don't burn any bridges. You never know when the other interviewers (the ones who stayed in your case) will be interviewing you at another company and remember you for leaving a bad taste in their mouth.

Agreed. In my own case, when I'm interviewing people I frequently ask at least one or two questions that I really don't expect anybody to know the answer to. It's more of a "here's your chance to really extra impress me", but not knowing the answer is in no way an indication that you aren't qualified. One of my favorites of this type is "Can you explain the difference between deadlock and livelock?" Anyway, when asking stuff like that I make it a point to always try to remember and emphasize to the candidate "there are no auto-fail questions here, and not knowing the answer to this does not mean we won't want you", etc. I've interviewed (as a candidate) enough times to understand how nerve wracking it can be, and I try my best to help the candidates not feel intimidated or whatever.

And yet, I think sometimes people stumble on a single question, and suddenly get more nervous thinking that they've "failed the interview". Interviewing is not an easy process, for either side of the table.

Just to expand on this: It seems really optimal, in terms of extracting information, if the candidate can answer about half the questions (maximal entropy, if you will).

If the questions are too easy and the candidate nails them all, you're wasting time. If the questions are too hard and the candidate fails them all, you're wasting time. You want to quickly get to the limit of the candidate's knowledge, and spend some time there.

This is particularly true if you aim to cover several areas of interest quickly.

(The dose of something that kills half of the lab rats: 50% lethal dose.)

There are times when you want someone to show initiative and come up with a solution on the spot and others when you really just want someone to clearly say, I don't know.

It's always good to have at least one question where someone can demonstrate that intellectual honesty.

It's another 20 minutes or whatever. Just smile and continue.

"What does reading and writing to a database mean?"

"I suppose you could think of them as opposites...For example, most humans push waste out from their bottom end. But for you, it comes out of your mouth with relative ease."

It’s totally okay to call it if you know you aren’t interested. In fact it’s more polite to save everyone’s time. I’d recommend opening up to the idea that the interview is yours as much as theirs, and you can leave any time you’d like. Just be very respectful about it.

What happened to you is bizarre. Many many years ago I had a slightly drunk guy interview me and tell me I wasn’t the right caliber for his team, haha. That was so weird. Maybe I should have gone in there totally hammered and I would have gotten the job.

Sometimes you just know it isn’t meant to be though and you’ve got to just call it.

At the time I had about three years programming Perl, and I was keen to work in the (at the time) hot area of programming for web sites. I was working in C++ on Windows, fun enough but not as fun as Perl (it was the 1990s)

I prepared carefully for the interview. Making sure I was clear about what I was expert at, what I was good at, and the parts of Perl that I was not so good at. At the interview I started out by carefully detailing all that I was expert and good at, took about five minutes, I thought it would help because if what I was good at was not what they wanted I could get back to work and no harm done....

After my careful exposition the first question the interviewer asked me was: "Can you do object orientated Perl?" Clearly they had not understood a word I said, they were asking questions from a list after waiting for me to finish and I did not want to work for this firm. What a waste of time.

So I decided to see just how much of their time I could waste. I carefully answered all the questions from their list, in as much excruciating and technical detail as I could. I watched them squirm. At the end of the list, there was the pro forma "any questions?". You bet! I had a lot!!

In the end the interviewer was standing behind my chair, not quite physically pushing me out, but clearly very pissed.

I was correct about not wanting the job. Three years later, after the company went broke, I had a contract trying to fix a site they worked on. Where their idea of OO Perl had been An Object for a SQL table, AN Object for Every Row, an Object for Every Value..... A huge mess.

That was my first experience of "HR interview first" using outsourced HR firm. What a waste of money, and a red flag

I have terminated politely some interviews that didn't sit right to me in the past.

Something along the line of saving everyone's time and that I don't see myself a good fit at the present time.

It's like a date gone wrong, you're not paid to be there neither to fake for approval. If it's not a good match, let the seat for someone else and find your own elsewhere; respectfully of course as the industry is small enough that another interviewer in that room might be a future colleague.

You're there to show that you're a professional, so that's how you act at all times.

If you decide the company isn't a great "cultural fit" then you can politely and professionally move on.

Same with leaving a job in general. As soon as you decide to go there's no reason to not be as polite about it as possible.

The complete interview was a joke. The person didn't know which position I was applying to; another guy joined the interview halfway through and asked if he should take over; and the worst: the main interviewer was boasting about working 12 hours a day as a contractor and getting double the salary from the actual employees.

They didn't make an offer.

It was for a DBA position with a small team at a major insurance company. It was a team of 2 that wanted a 3rd experienced Oracle DBA to help them expand. Sounded good. Interview starts with those 2 guys, and immediately it was readily apparent that one of them had no real intention to hire someone, at least not me. Within 5 minutes, the shithead one had laughed out loud when I said I didn't have much experience with a certain part of Oracle. Any Oracle DBA out there knows that the product is f'ing PACKED with stuff, lots of it you won't use because you are in a certain segment (i.e. - in a data warehouse environment, you use certain tools but not others, etc).

I just sat there, staring at him. The other guy at least had the courtesy to turn red-faced. I know a lot of posts here say to just thank them and walk out, but I was so shocked I just sat there. The rude asshole never asked another question, and finally the nice guy escorted me out. He left me at the door with a "We'll be in touch." and I just chuckled and thanked him.

People will get bit flustered but just kill 'em with kindness repeating the three main things in the quotes:

* Not feeling it

* Nothing personal

* It would be rude to waste your time

They'll eventually get it as you pick your stuff up and leave. If it's an interview I will thank the person for their time/the opportunity with a handshake on my way out the door.

Never burn your bridges. Even rude asshole bridges. You don't know if maybe that guy just got a call that his kid has cancer after working an 80 hour week. You don't know if maybe that guy will be hired at your next job. You don't know if he might bad-mouth you to other employers for fun. And you don't know if maybe they're waiting for one more reason to fire his ass. There is no benefit to walking out early, so just wait it out, and then politely inform them you don't think the position is a good fit for you.

I actually wrote to her about one of those situations (interviewer staring down at my resume, interrupting my answers to ask about something else on the resume, etc.) and she printed it.

Her response was, basically: if you expect to stay in the profession, just be polite and don't tell them they have the manners of a baboon.

I had an in person interview with multiple people at a company and the CTO came in for his part and immediately started telling me how he wasn't supposed to be there he was supposed to be on vacation and he had a flight to catch so let's get this over with. I immediately said "Thanks for your time, please let everyone else know I appreciate talking with them and enjoyed our conversations. I'm not comfortable working at a place that treats candidates this way." and I stood up and left.

One of the things that stood out to me from hist list went something like "discover the thrill of being extremely polite to people who are rude to you." Being no saint myself this really resonated with me.

I wouldn't walk out, and I certainly wouldn't take an offer, but I'd stay for the interview for the trill of behaving excellently.

> It’s thrilling to be extremely polite to rude strangers.

If you are interviewing somebody, you are not there as 'yourself', you are representing the company and their engineering org, and by my understanding, it is exceedingly poor form to present the company as inconsiderate and to burn bridges. Even if you're having a bad day and the candidate is a poor fit, you suck it up and remain professional and collegial.

The one who walked out should be removed from the interviewing pool. Maybe they're a good engineer, maybe not, but if they act that way consistently then their attitude and self control are not cut out for interviewing.

I am now a hiring manager and have conducted countless interviews at this point.

You did the right thing continuing the interview professionally. Assume the most charitable interpretation. You don't know the whole situation with the jerk. Maybe he just started and this is the start of a chain of problems that will get him fired. Maybe he just needs training on how to interview. Maybe he's OK otherwise but they'll never let him interview anyone else again. Maybe he's only sort of a jerk normally but he was leaving for a funeral or something.

There's just no good reason to get yourself a "not now, not ever" note in the company's files and your interviewers' memories just to indulge a bit of social revenge. That said, use your best judgment and certainly remove yourself from an interview for illegal, dangerous, unethical, or threatening behavior. The crazies are out there.

I’ve ended interviews within the first 5 minutes. I have a knack for seeing through this kind of stuff. I also have no shame on calling someone out on it.

Toxic people usually don’t know they are toxic because they have been enabled to do so. It’s also well within your right to confront someone like this and say “Excuse me, sir (or ma’am), I was under the impression this was a top place to work. Your display just convinced me that it is not. I respect your decision to leave as I hope you respect mine.” and walk out. Not saying that’s what you should say verbatim but your time is just as valuable and your opinions should be just as weighted. Whether you work there yet or not.

Companies with a great culture would have asked you to dive deeper. To understand your point of view. Maybe a healthy debate. Teach us something that we don’t know, kind of thing.

I think when you’re early in your career you just want to get the job and will do whatever it takes. After 5 years you should be given the same respect as that person gives their colleagues. After all, you are interviewing to be their colleague. They are interviewing to be yours.

Never, ever, let an interview be single sided. You will have no negotiating power.

The start of interview felt like he had made up his mind, being lady, with so many years of gap in between, may be she is no good for coding role. I was asked a question for which some particular answer was expected, which is commonly used for that domain, but since I had never worked in that domain, the answer didn't click instantaneously..

And the very next question he asked me in next 2 mins time was "you don't know the answer because you haven't been coding ? "

I politely conveyed that just because i dont know the answer to this question, doesnt mean i do not code. Its simply means that i have not worked on this particular problem and probably next time they should screen people with those particular skillsets. And i didnt continue the interview.

It felt good. I didn't want them to bully me just because I am a candidate (and not employer) and tht too the one with not extremely impressive profile. Even if I had cleared the interview, I don't think I would have accepted to work with that company.

Well done for being honest and not tailoring your knowledge set to the requirements of the position, like many people do. Often people learn something just because it's advertised fiercely in a company's 'requirements'. This is why I refuse to learn React, Vue, Angular etc because although they're required often, a baseline of HTML, CSS & JS will outlast the new 'soup of the day' framework.

I think after that person had left the room I would probably interrupt the interview to ask who that person was and what their role is. Then I'd ask about the general culture of the company.

I think I'd be curious to know if that was someone who would be a peer or someone higher up the chain. In either case I might pull out of the process though. I have met enough "brilliant assholes" in. my life I have little interest in working with anymore of them.

I'd also be curious to know why he is involved in the interview process.

might depend on how bad I need/want the job. If the company is big enough I'm unlikely to see that person then I might just let it slide. I don't know the specifics of where you are in your career and job search, but this is a great time to be looking for work in tech.

I don't think I'd terminate the process there. You're already there, you might as well get some interview practice in. If you get an offer and you'd like to decline because of that interview experience. Tell them!! CC as many people as you know there too.

Good luck with your search, and sorry you went through that. It's unacceptable.

if they ended up extending an offer I would decline and say why. A company that small probably needs that fellow and they're unlikely to fire him about this. Maybe he was having a bad day.

Probably small consolation but this experience is a good story and frankly if this is how they are to work with, I'd rather see it revealed before joining. As awkward as it was imagine finding out that you made major life changes just to work with some assholes.

It feels bad being disrespected and it is sometimes hard to shake off, but at least you probably dodged a bullet and weeks/months of wasted time.

If that happened I would actually directly ask the other interviewers "Did I do something wrong or say something to offend him/her". Put the ball in their court and hear what they have to say.

I also love swat535's suggestion to end the interview with "Thank you for the opportunity, I don't think I'm a good fit for this position"

Also, you are right, I'd treat that as a data point into whether this is a company you want to work for.

I once had a company ask me to interview (one of their recruiters reached out to me) and I was so so on it, but curious, so I took time off and scheduled a technical phone interview. 5 minutes after the interview should have started (I was waiting for the phone call and wondering whether I had messed up the scheduling), I received a brusque email from the engineer meant to interview me "I don't have time to interview you, reach out to our recruiter". You can bet my interest in the company tanked and when the recruiter tried to re-schedule me (without so much as an apology) I declined and ask they not contact me in the future. Because I figured either.

1: They hired jerks 2: Their engineers were so stressed that they viewed an interview as yet one more burden.

I have been on the other side where a candidate we were interviewing (at the time I was a junior engineer and my interview partner was a Senior engineer). The candidate was so rude/condescending to her (but not to me, I wonder why) that after we finished our interview session we told HR and they cancelled the rest of his interviews and thanked him for his time.

If that happened I would actually directly ask the other interviewers "Did I do something wrong or say something to offend him/her". Put the ball in their court and hear what they have to say."

This exactly. The initial event is not necessarily the worst unforgivable crime in the world. What's more interesting is do they consider that a lapse and are apologetic, or do they consider it normal.

And no one who isn't a complete ass should have a problem with merely being asked "What was that?", and "We don't know but sorry about that." would be good enough for me, at least enough to proceed.

There's always at least one or two douches around no matter where you go (if there weren't, that would bother me more like some kind of brainwashed cult), or someone with a bad day, or someone who "struggles with asshole" ie not a bad person and you could work fine with them but they just have their moments and even they know it. So the incident by itself shouldn't be taken as more than a flag to find out whether it was the exception or the rule.

Leaving immediately is essentially committing the very intolerance that I would hate in others.

At the time, I was in desperate need of a new job or else have to leave the country, so it hurt to be dismissed so readily.

These days I'd be more inclined to excuse myself early, but on the other hand, who's to say that this one person is representative of the company and their culture? Maybe they're a recent hire. Maybe I would have enjoyed the subsequent interviews. My only regret is that I didn't share my experience with someone else at that company.

My unequal trade,

"The rain, it raineth on the just, And also on the unjust fella, But chiefly on the just, because, The unjust steals the just's umbrella."

edit: I was obviously thinking of "I can only explain it to you. I can't understand it for you." but that appears not to be Feynman either. Oh well!

Repeating what I wrote then:

>I once got stood up for a round of interviews — I showed up, waited, emailed them multiple times to let them know I was there, and then 30 minutes later they wrote to me to ask if I could come in another day (rather than meeting me at the front desk where I was sitting). At the time I was just annoyed that they had wasted my time, but in retrospect, the real red flag there was that no one took responsibility — “there was a scheduling conflict” was as much as I got.

As to how you handled this particular situation, OP -- I think you handled it fine and I wouldn't worry too much. I think most of us would have been flummoxed by this person's extremely unusual behavior.

It's easy to write, easy to read, and easily does everything I need. I prize clarity over almost anything else when programming, and Scheme lets me do that way more effectively than anything else. There's very little syntax or boilerplate to get in the way.

It's also very consistent, and I like that.

The worst languages feel cobbled together or congealed rather than designed. Scheme is the opposite of that.

Not being facetious either. it has the same semantics and a lot of python's early adopters were former lispers.

That said, scheme the language is much more powerful than python. in exchange for the easy syntax, python lost macros and took on a crippled lambda syntax.

Though I like that Python takes some inspiration from Lisp, it has a lot of unnecessary complexity and inconsistency which leads to a lot of gotchas.

Python's additional syntax make it less readable and harder to write for me than Scheme. It's only more "beginner friendly" if you're used to Algol-like languages, otherwise Scheme is simpler to understand.

Just my 2c

Let keep the good intent and intellectual curiosity please.

Still, when given the choice I prefer to work in a language that's easy and clear, rather than one that's painful and convoluted.

Sure, I might be able to do the same in another language, but I'm reminded of Alan Perlis' advice to "Beware of the Turing tar-pit in which everything is possible but nothing of interest is easy."

What's so incomprehensible about this?

Of course if you do a half-assed job all the time, you may afford to not care about your tools. I want to excel at mine, so I definitely have preferences.

For many people, programming language and compiler/interpreter design is one of the major parts of computer science that they are interested in. Language development is an entire subfield of computer science on it's own!

Languages are a lot more deeply complex than what they may appear on the surface, and choosing a specific one for a specific task is also a little more complicated than choosing a nail vs a screw, with the tradeoffs not always being so clear cut and there being many more factors and "dimensions" at play. Style is also a big part of it, with some people just preferring certain styles and opinions more than others.

>The tools we use have a profound and devious influence on our thinking habits, and therefore on our thinking abilities.

Obviously you should use the right tool for the job, however in the realm of programming languages someone might find a language's model of code structure better than other languages and more in tune with his/her way of thinking.

But I couldn't tell you my favorite language, it doesn't really make sense to me.

I think we would be better off having core business rules in one of these languages instead of having to rewrite them every decade or so in the current fashionable language.

The best solution in my opinion is to complete the interview, then politely inform the HR person that you are no longer interested in the job. If you are doing an onsite interview, you can feel free to leave during the middle of the day. When they ask why, politely say that you don't believe that this will be a good fit, and thank them for their time.

Rude interviewers imply rude colleagues - if they are rude to you when they are on "interview behavior" you don't want to know what they are like otherwise.

I have been in this industry 10 years now. I am not a million dollar a year 10x engineer but I have taken jobs that paid well but that were horrible environmentally and know now that if I feel ominous things in just the interview then that's all I need to know to avoid a potentially toxic workplace.

Finish the interview politely. You don't want to leave the other interviewers in the lurch.

Then immediately after the interview, contact your rep and say "with respect, due to the extremely inappropriate behavior of person X, I will not be moving forwards. Here was my experience:"

So I waited...

An hour went by and a PA came in to apologies and say the big man was on his way but still on a call.

Another 30 minutes went by and I just walked out without further discussion.

I did get the job in the end and it was a decent gig but I still wished I'd left then interview sooner.

Luckily we work in an industry where kissing arses generally isn't required. That doesn't mean you can or should be rude but it goes both ways.

Don't be a doormat.

If someone laughs when you say Scheme is your favourite language, it's perfectly fine to smile back at them and ask them why they're laughing.

"Before we wrap up, can I ask a few questions?"

(No interviewer, rude or otherwise, has turned this down on me)

"I just want to say this is as much as an interview for you to evaluate me, as it is for me to evaluate you. What do you think could have been improved in our interview for the future?" - if you feel they were especially rude/arrogant: "Do you feel you have conducted this interview professionally?"

Now, anyone with any sort of sense will tell you that it's stupid to enter into a negotiation (which is what interviews are, even if you're probably not discussing acceptance and pay right away) without knowing about who you're talking to. And while I didn't have any specific knowledge of the inner-workings of his company, I was definitely familiar with his industry.

I've always made it a point to carry a notepad with me when interviewing with people. I have a section of points I specifically want to highlight, and also a section on specific things about the company that I'd like to know more about. Turns out that rude-ass over there on the other side of the desk couldn't answer some pretty basic things about his own workplace, down to the commission structure for new hires. Things that a self-assured future captain of industry (as he presented himself) should have definitely known.

At the end of the interview, I thanked them for their time and also told them that I did not think I would be a good fit due to my perception of their corporate culture. I don't know what happened after that, but I do know that as gracious as the owner was, he was staring daggers at his employee about halfway through my grilling.

>I've had an interviewer laugh in my face when I told them my favorite language was Scheme.

Snirk, I mean, I have started to grow grey hairs. What do you think is the best solution for grey hairs?

>Then they just walked in the middle of the interview without saying a word when it wasn't going well, leaving the other interviewers to continue without them.

You may have not noticed they got told to gtfo.

>In retrospect, I think I should have politely terminated the interview myself, as I don't want to work with rude, unprofessional snobs, but I'm wondering what people here would have done, and how you've faced rudeness during interviews yourself?

Nah, waste their time. Work doubly hard to convince them to hire you. Then if they do offer you the job, you can be polite again and explain that the business sounds awesome with X mission. Lather on how awesome they all are and then say unfortunately you decline have to decline. You felt the interview didn't go well and plan to work extra hard to do better next time.

You're already there, you've spent the time to prepare and get there on time, etc. Might as well get as much benefit from it as you can. So use the time to hone your interviewing skills and deal with the hostility, while knowing full well that you are not going to take the job. But you'll work on making yourself as appealing as possible. And you never know if one of those interviewers will admire how you handled the situation and recommend you to someone else, or you'll come across them in another interview years later.

So yeah, make the best of the situation and use it to your advantage.

Interestingly I was pretty positively voted up on this post. I was nearly +10 at one point, but now I'm in the negatives.

Guess people don't agree?

Curious what they dislike about my post.

edit/ My imaginary points are going downward. Lots of my posts suddenly at 0 points. Guess it's time for a break.

I basically just ignored the behavior and continued as normal, professionally, with the other interviewer. Eventually, whatever I was coding up finally drew the rude interviewer's attention.

I made it to the next round, which I passed, and was ready to do a final round but ended up going with another offer before proceeding with them. After reading a bit more about the work culture at the place and seeing the interviewer's behavior, I definitely don't regret it, even though their RSUs would likely be worth quite a lot today. Work life balance and culture are important so that you're not miserable in your job.

My advice is: continue the interview professionally, but take the rudeness into consideration before you take an offer if it comes. Worst case, you're out a few hours of time and learned a bit about a different company. Also don't assume the worst. With the interviewer who was texting, I chose to believe that maybe he had some personal issue going on rather than thinking that my behavior triggered the rudeness, which helped me finish up the interview.

This is an awful experience and I think it is better to not second guess yourself after a traumatic experience. We are not machines, we are human beings, and getting shot down (in a cruel fashion) when the stakes are high is not something we should be expected to handle well.

Someone being rude to you is not traumatic.

The CTO just wouldn't stop speaking (very fast) and barely let me speak or even heard me. This was first red flag to me.

At some point he asked me very distinctly "If you join, you will work with engineers that are way smarter than you, is that OK with you?". I was startled by this question and felt quite insulted by it. The conversation basically went south when I answered something like "Well, I'd sincerely love to get such experience because as far as I remember it has always been the other way around when it comes to engineering.".

Now don't get me wrong, I am usually doing my best to stay humble and open minded, and comparing people or bragging around is not something I normally do or consider appropriate.

But I am also a proud and very good engineer gifted by the ability to learn, understand and visualize things very quickly. I have been passionately honing my skills and learning everyday for more than 15 years. And as a human being, I would absolutely defend my pride it if someone attacks it.

I think it's only natural to feel bad about such situation, but the interview not working is not always your own fault.

1. An in-person phone round interview at one of the social media Companies in the Bay Area. The interviewer came 10 min late, gave me a problem and was then busy as hell with his phone. At least he had the courtesy to tell me that there was a prod issue he was engaged in, but still, not cool.

The problem was tough as hell, and I didn’t solve it. There was no help/prompts either. I was curious about the source of the problem - and the person told me that it was his own personal twist on a problem from competitive programming competitions.

So, basically, unless you are a seasoned competitive programmer, you are screwed. Again, not cool.

2. An interview at one of the Big Banks in SF for a Engg role. One of the interviewers asked me about my current job and was visibly upset when I said it was cool and nice. Then they followed that up by being disinterested and openly hostile in the rest of the interview.

Didn’t get the job and dodged a bullet. But I still don’t understand what his problem was. Since when is it necessary to hate and abuse your current job when you look for the next one?

Then, whether planned or not, the rudeness was an effective and important part of the interview process...there was no cultural fit.

I mean maybe the rudeness was performative. Particularly given how utterly useless the question is and how there's no answer where someone couldn't plausibly respond rudely...PHP is obvious, but "Rust? Oh you're one of those people?"

How people respond to rudeness can be an effective gauge of personality.

Some people will laugh it off. Some assume the source was having a bad day. Some will actually say the "what the fuck?" they're thinking.

And some people will go ballistic.

Not reacting as part of your professional self-image says a something about your personality. Terminating the interview on the spot wouldn't be part of that...because it would be unprofessional.

Which is particularly true for people who work directly with clients where the way to deal with rudeness is rates that make experiencing rudeness worthwhile.

By which I mean not accepting rudeness is a privilege. The McDonald's cashier and the hotel maid don't get that option.

Good luck.

I saw on reddit recently (some database related subreddit) someone say "tell me your favorite type of join" as their favorite interview question.

I've ended a few interview processes at companies due to things I observed during onsite interviews (not necessarily rudeness), and with the benefit of hindsight I think those were absolutely the right call.

I did have one particularly rude interviewer once, but since it was in finance I thought it was a "stress interview". I took the job, and it turns out that this person was just toxic and the company had a culture of tolerating toxic people if they were high enough performers. I'm still glad I took the job, but the experience definitely was strong evidence of the link between what you see in an interview and what you get if you work there.

Seeing an interviewer leave during interview would leave me pretty unfazed as well.

Overall, I wouldn't personally register this interviewer as rude. If it went over my threshold I would have just left.

I still prefer overt rudeness to silent back stabbing, one upping sabotage though.

As for the rudeness of the interviewer, I will add that sometimes great developers have terrible people skills, and sometimes those people get put on interview committees. One obnoxious person doesn't necessarily dictate the culture of an entire company. Go with your gut. If the position seems otherwise exceptional and it's just one rude person, consider giving them another shot, and if not, walk--either figuratively, or literally out of the interview.

Directly after that interview, I had an informal lunch with another engineer at the company, with more interviews scheduled afterward. I mulled it over during lunch, and instead of continuing the on-site interview, I thanked my lunch companion and told them that after my experience with the previous interviewer, I was no longer interested in entertaining the prospect of employment at the company.

The lunch companion seemed mildly surprised, and apologized for the previous interviewer. I went home and had 3 hours back to myself that day I hadn't planned to have.

To this day, it is one of the most cathartic experiences I've had in my career. Realizing that I had the power to walk away and exercising it, after years of having deference toward interviewer and companies drilled into my head, felt empowering.

Sometimes I think everyone should do this once, even if they're pretty neutral about the company, just to feel more comfortable standing on equal terms with a potential employer.

Now (not that I'm particularly experienced) I advise people receiving offers to ask their potential employers if they can hang out with the team for lunch, or for a day or more. I think a lot of people can put on a smiling face for a 1-hour interview and might be a lot more irritable during a typical workday. The average workplace tenure (anecdotally) is ~2 years, it's worth doing an extra day of due diligence before signing up for an org. And of course, if they say you can't meet the team or get lunch, that's signal too (generally negative).

EDIT: I should mention, the company was small enough that I knew I'd have to work with the rude interviewer at least sporadically. Your mileage may very with large FAANG-type organizations where you'll never see your interviewer again.

I was fortunate in that it was only a 30 minute phone interview so I could just grit my teeth and wait it out but it is entirely reasonable to terminate an interview if you are not being given respect.

I've had all sorts of bad interview experiences where interviewers have taken advantage of my naivete and kindness from all ends of the interview pipeline, especially early on in my career. Unfortunately, rude and unprofessional people are everywhere. Even if times might be tough, no job is ever worth sacrificing your self-respect.

If someone laughed and walked out. I would ignore it. I would be surprised at that type of reaction, but would remain professional and make a mental note to not work there. That's a very bad sign.

Diversity is what makes us strong. This applies to programming languages and differences of opinions as well. Sure, someone has to call the shots and make a decision (we will all use Go or Java) but having devs who know other languages, and have strong views as to why they like them, is a good thing.

While that was an enormous red flag, so is that they had laughed in your face about your choice for a favorite language. That person was extremely rude to you and that behavior was accepted by their co-workers.

While wanting to end that interview right on the spot is a natural reaction, I would have kept going. Depending on the size of the your market, you could get tagged as that person that bailed in the middle of the interview. Depending on how the rest of the interview went, you could be direct and ask about that interviewer and if that was indicative of the company culture.

Of course, this is predicated on the assumption that OP's perception of events was reflective of reality. Sometimes high-pressure situations can also make people over-sensitive (I know it can for me, at the very least).

I dealt with it by declining the offer I received and making sure to give feedback about that interviewer directly to the HR team and that he was a contributing factor. While considering the offer I enquired about whether he would be in my reporting chain and made it clear that was a dealbreaker for me.

Apparently the guy gave me the best feedback of all my interviewers. Why then did he need to be like that?!

The next interviewer can either try to explain away the behavior "Yes, that guy's a jerk, but don't let him taint your perception of the organization", or maybe they'll say "Yeah, this is the no-nonsense culture we like around here, if you can't take criticism, then you're probably not a good fit".

Either way you'll have more information about whether or not you want to work there.

Tierh

Anyone who has contempt for the beauty of Scheme is a liability, not an asset, to your team and you can safely recommend no-hire.

I think you did well to stay in the interview. Hell I even would have taken the job if it was offered. I mean if you are desperate for work, you have to just deal with it. You can always stick up for yourself in the mean time.

Next time you see this behavior you can tell them very politely and calmly that you are not interested in joining a company that promotes this behavior, you are incredibly sorry for taking their time and that you would like to terminate the interview now.

Two outcomes: you wake someone up and they kindly ask you to give them a chance because this behavior will be dealt with, or you are saving yourself from a bad employer.

In your scenario, I'd have probably just smirked at the (I hope embarassed) remaining interviewers, and said "welp, anything else you guys wanna discuss before I go? Because I think I see where we're all headed here" or some other lighten-the-mood banter. Then we can exchange recipes or new restaurant hotspots, shake our heads at how ridiculous tech can be, and be on our merry ways.

(I have not been in this situation but have had the reverse happening to me where the candidate walked out on me after performing poorly in the first few minutes. I asked if they want to at least stay for lunch, but they seemed like they were in a hurry to run away.)

BTW, it's actually great that you got a strong signal about the company. The interviewer apparently lacks of intellectual curiosity and the company culture is dubious. A much worse outcome would be that you find out the culture after you join the company.

More to your point, it would have been fine to collect your things, get up from the table, and say something like "Thank you for this opportunity to talk. I wish you well." or something like that.

Not nasty, not sarcastic, just relaxed and confident.

Cultivating an ability to be genuinely more or less indifferent to what arises in my life (to be non-reactive) has been working very well for me.

I wish you the best.

Pre covid, I had two in person interviews with different AWS teams. One in San Francisco and on in Seattle. Both technical interviews were tough and the interviewers were very polite, helpful, and gracious, even when I would struggle. They were also very interested in my answers to the sorts of questions about “what’s your favorite language?” Or “what sorts of hobbies do you have?”

Even though i did not go through with either position, my experience interviewing for AWS was a very pleasant one.

Your intuition to end the interview yourself is good as well.

For all you know their spouse died last week and they were having a terrible time.

They shouldn't have acted that way, but we should be wary about generalizing a person from a single mistake or a company from a single mistake.

You can always turn down a job offer if one is extended if the company rubbed you the wrong way, I can't see how you'd be better off terminating an interview rather than completing it. ... unless they started talking about something illegal or something like that.

I know how I wish I handled it, but I just sat there because I was honestly confused by him.

When asked if I had questions, I should have asked the shadower if he thought Uber encouraged a culture of mutual respect. Then as a follow up, if that culture was demonstrated here. When he’d inevitably say, “Yes?”, I would have simply said, “I don’t.”

Then you should walk out as well. Explaining calmly but confidently why you are doing so, of course, to underscore the fact that you can still be a professional even when they are not. But either way -- the interview had clearly lost any purpose by that point, so the sooner everyone can cut their losses and move on, the better.

That's so strange. I'm not sure how I would have reacted to that but I don't think it would have been very kind. I like having a few good high-brow, back-handed slaps to throw around when I need to put rude people back in line. But walking out laughing? That's so surreal I feel like I would have simply done the same. I imagine it would've seemed a very chaotic scene to those remaining.

Yep. They didn't say anything and continued as if nothing happened. Though I did get the feeling that one of them seemed uncomfortable after the interviewer who laughed at me walked out without saying a word.

Assuming that the interviewee chooses not to pursue employment at the company, it seems optional but appropriate to leave constructive feedback with the recruiter/hiring manager on the way out.

- Drag their company they work for on Blind and Glassdoor.

This is the best thing you can do not just for yourself, but for other engineers as well.

Do not enable such. Walk out. End it.

Was being interviewed by a panel of 4-5 people. The main guy, who I presume was the hiring manager stood up in the middle of the interview and left the room, seemingly unimpressed with my answers.

Thankfully I didn't get through and heard many horror stories regarding their culture in later years.

I once had an interview (in Portuguese) where some HR person asked me if I spoke English and seemed to get very upset when I replied that I did. This person started berating me with an angry face: "how would you know??". That was very strange. I can't imagine what was going on in this person's head.

No regrets.

In my view, these things are self-correcting. If the interview is so poor that I feel it doesn't make sense, it's extremely likely more will be a rough scenario.

I was interviewing for tech lead in one of startups in my niche. The very first meeting with the CEO ended on very positive note, and also he said that there is a potential growth path to CTO (I was young and had no idea what CTO really means so I believed him). Startup was fairly established with big customer base for the niche it operates. And my experience was a perfect fit, at least from technical point of view.

Prior to that role I was working in environment where people generally had respect to each other. I never had to deal with politics. It was enough to be respectful and just deliver what I was meant to deliver.

When I entered the interview there was a long table, on the other side of the table there were 4 persons - CEO, COO, accountant, and some older person in his early 50s. On the other side of that table there was a chair for me to sit on.

The interview immediately started from a bombardment of non-technical questions I would normally have time to reflect on. But still, I was expected to provide fast responses even though those questions was not really even close to what the role was about or what I disclosed on my CV. Particularly the older guy was very active and, well, the tone of his voice and the way how he was structuring his questions was not nice, to say the least. Anything I said was immediately denied by this guy, and while the time was passing the tone of his voice and general behavior was becoming more and more rude.

I remember what I was thinking about straight after I left the interview - this was the worst interview in my life, it felt like actor-played drama. I was on many interviews prior to this one, I think I can say I have seen enough to be able to tell the difference :) Later on, when I talked this through with my wife I was wondering if leaving would not be better way to end this theater, from perspective of years I think I could steer the interview away from areas I'm not competent by simply saying that it's not what I advertised on my CV.

When I left the room I was simply told I'm not a good fit, even though days earlier CEO was very excited and during the interview there was not a single technical question asked (like, not even what technologies I worked with, or what projects I delivered). I found it quite confusing, but such is life, I moved on :)

That's not a euphemism: he genuinely believed he was reading the lines on my palm, and that that makes sense to do in an interview.

This is the core truth of the situation. Be gentle with how you tell them this; but not telling them, or letting them believe something else is fundamentally dishonest.

Some version of "Is he always like that?" perhaps.

I wouldn’t terminate the interview, or even give negative feedback. Just politely decline if they ask you to continue the process. That way you have the ability to go back if the situation changes. (If the jerk leaves)

I probably wouldn’t have had the guys to do this myself either, but I think this would have been the right thing to do. Like others have said, they gave you important information about how the company (does not) deal with assholes.

If I don't like them after a few minutes of meeting them, I can't imagine how I'll feel when I have to spent a majority of my day dealing with them.

In your specific example, depending on how the rest of the team reacted, I might've also just stayed to the end.

Oh, and I told all my friends to avoid those companies. It was a nice gesture for my friends, not a "cancel X" move.

If not, then calmly state that you feel the company is not a good fit and that ending the interview early is in both of your interests, go outside and enjoy the rest of your day.

I wouldn't get too hung up on it personally. It sounds like you behaved maturely and kept your cool, that's a desirable trait.

If it's unusual, then they should have no problem saying that and even apologizing. Or do they act like that was fine and why are you such a baby?

Basically the same way I'd react or expect anyone else to react to the same action in any other context.

"What's up with that guy?" or "What was that?" Should be easy enough to answer.

The difference between "We don't know, and we apologize for that." and "What do you mean?" tells you more about the culture than the intial act by that one person.

An event like that is actually a kind of a bonus because you get to see how they handle that, do they think it was bad behavior or are they used to it and expect you to be used to it.

> An event like that is actually a kind of a bonus because you get to see how they handle that, do they think it was bad behavior or are they used to it and expect you to be used to it.

This is not good advice.

Don't squander your interview time on such HR nonsense. You're there to market yourself, it's a first impression type situation where you have the inquisitive attention of multiple stakeholders.

For all you know that guy who's already left the interview process is just a Scheme hater and has basically done everything within his power to obstruct a Scheme enthusiast from finding a job.

Voluntarily squandering more of your interview time on friction he created is not in your best interest, it's just empowering him.

If you later are concerned with offer in hand, you can always have that conversation before accepting. At least that way you've demonstrated an ability to prioritize your use of time appropriately and not simply react emotionally in the moment.

This much is basic human respect you give to anyone in any context.

It's not good advice to suggest any less.

By immediately spending more time on such nonsense you've chosen to give it top priority.

Surely you have more important things to communicate to the remaining interviewers in your interview, than someone else's behavior.

What's important here is you don't react to a bad interviewer unprofessionally by becoming a bad interviewee, producing a high probability of creating no offer at all.

Friction occurs in any professional setting, how you handle it is part of what you bring to the table as a potential employee. Keep your eye on the ball; pursuit of the best offer one can garner.

What you do with that offer is completely orthogonal. Even if you decide in the moment of that bad interviewer being a jerk that you'd never work for the company, there's no reason not to still kill it and discover what compensation you're walking away from. Plus it's just plain good practice at not empowering individuals to negatively affect your behavior/performance.

What I want to do: Walk out

What I did: Stay there in shock, wondering what to do, and seething in anger on the way home.

Its like anything else--unless you regularly meet rude people, you are at a shock when you do meet someone

I think asking to stop the interview could be a proper way to handle this in the situation. Maybe you can also try talking to the recruiter / hiring manager about your experience.

It didn't happen to you, it happened for you.

Sometimes there are difficult people, sometimes you're catching people at their very-worst due to hidden reasons.

Unless there's an imminent worry about someone's health or safety, one reasonably professional way to handle such situations is to continue with the planned, important tasks, then discuss/take-action on the exceptional behavior with a little distance, in another forum better-suited to that.

And, since there were other interviewers there who were the flouncers' coworkers, and you seem to have been in their premises, if they didn't make a big deal about the situation in the moment, you didn't really have any more obligation than perhaps a shocked-look, or brief "that was weird" comment at most, before following their cue to get-back-to-business.

That doesn't mean the concern ends there, though.

On a subsequent day, and certainly before scheduling any separate set-of-interviews or considering any offer, it'd have been appropriate to ask the other interviewers, or whatever manager/HR-person/recruiter who's your main point-of-contact, about the incident. It'd be appropriate to ask if the person who stormed-out is often like that, if you'd be working with them, and so forth.

You'd want to sound-out whether they're some burn-out/malcontent on-the-way-out, or a difficult-but-essential person who others tiptoe-around & try to keep productive-but-contained, or something else.

And even if you progressed no further with the potential employer, perhaps even because the tantrum-person nixed you, it'd be appropriate to offer some feedback that you found their behavior off-putting.

But also more generally: while both sides of an interview should work to hold-back snap judgements until all relevant info is available, given the value of skilled professionals' time, at any point where there's certainty that one side or the other doesn't want to proceed, it's OK to cut things short.

If you're the candidate & become sure these aren't people you'd want to work with, you can absolutely say you've decided you're not interested & go. And if the 1st or 2nd interviewer in a series of many interviews achieves certainty that a candidate falls irredeemably short of what you thought when you brought them in for, or the projects' needs, it is a gift to both the candidate & the later interviewers not to spend another 4-12 person-hours going-through-the-motions.

I'm really sorry. I have felt so terrible after bad interviews. It really, really sucks.

Identifying a toxic company through a rude interviewer saves you time and effort.

what I do

life is too short, and good engineers in too high of demand, to put up with toxic people or groups in your life. trick is to spot them early, before you've said YES and began a serious mutual time investment

The way he behaved isn't just disrespectful, it's completely fucked up.

“It’s obvious the workplace culture here is not conducive to professional collaboration. I’ll be ending the call here, you can remove me from the candidate pool.”

That’s it. No need to grandstand. Don’t apologize. Don’t thank them for their time since they’ve blatantly wasted yours. Just say why you are dropping off, then do it.

Respect yourself first and others will follow suit.

as a candidate, you are interviewing the company as much as they're interviewing you.

This was a long time ago, and they were a very small startup. Odds are you haven't heard of them. It's definitely not any of the big names.

Not a lot you can do about it now.

Are you sure he didn't just walk out because he had other things to do and knew the others could take over?

Depending on when you learn that you have to leave, you can either say "Sorry, I won't be able to stay for the whole duration of the interview" or "Sorry, I'm needed elsewhere, my colleague will handle the rest of the interview". Leaving without saying a thing (even if it's just a nod and a smile) is more disruptive for the candidate than saying nothing.

OP should humble himself because A. It's not really that big of a deal, it's an opinion....about a dead language B. it's kind of an expected response in this industry. He also says himself that he doesn't even know if he asked what his favorite language was.

It becomes interesting when it's naturally followed up with "why?"

What the enterprise world does for languages isn't relevant. This level of disrespect, while representing my company, is deeply unacceptable.

The fact that this person felt this was acceptable shows this company's management does not keep a proper workplace.

All the people I was interviewing with recently graduated from a top comp sci school.

A lot of people have very limited experiences with Scheme in school, where they're usually forced to use a primitive Scheme from a million years ago. So they consider it to be a toy language, maybe suitable for education, but completely impractical for industry use.

They tend to have no experience or knowledge of modern, full-featured Schemes with large library ecosystems.

I wasn't asked why I liked Scheme, and wasn't given an opportunity to explain any of this or make the case for Scheme. We just launched directly in to whiteboarding... after which the interviewer who had laughed at me walked out.

Either way, you have to understand why a regular firm would laugh at that. A lot of these run of the mill places are thinking in terms of API’s. They don’t really care about combinators, run time AST manipulation, or true benefits of dynamic typing.

My guess is they’re cranking out Apps, or some sort of cloud deployment.

Honestly, I don't remember. This was quite a few years ago, and at this point I don't remember whether they asked -- probably not -- or whether I just blurted it out, because I love Scheme.

What I most remember is the slap in the face I got in response to sharing with them something that I loved, the awful whiteboarding session, and that same interviewer walking out without saying anything.

Or maybe the guy was partial to Haskell or Clojure or similar!

Or maybe he just came out of a long painful meeting where he tried to persuade a committee to let him build a new service in Scheme, but failed.