There are a huge contingent of people whose idea of “performance” isn’t aligned with those around them. Given some of the absolutely terse personalities I see on HN sometimes, and the wider developer community, I always take these “I aced the interviews” stories with a grain of salt. I’ve certainly interviewed and ultimately rejected candidates who ace the technical component but have some other blatant showstopper.
I do agree with you about people's attitude to how they did in technical tests. But I also think all interviewers having a veto is the wrong approach. However, I don't think companies really have time or inclination to do it any other way.
I think I do well on both technical tests and the conversational side. I'm basing that on ratio of offers.
> But I also think all interviewers having a veto is the wrong approach
It's based on people assuming that others will use that veto reasonably. Company i work for had a veto system but i don't think it was ever used. It was also essentially 3 level system "hire", "probably not" and "i object to this person ever working at this company"
I've heard the latter being expressed a few times but only with candidates that nobody was keen on.
