How does that make sense? I was told that you got a ton of applications and that I didn't meet the cutoff for the pool. Surely you can't just keep the top X (open positions + margin) and try to place them into appropriate levels if they make it through the remaining rounds? You very likely won't have an appropriate mapping of skills to your open roles and candidates will be left dissatisfied, right?
Isn't a hiring challenge supposed to be a more objective assessment of engineering skill? If there's less "there's less surface area for us to derive signal from" then maybe it's not better than the traditional model. To be told that I didn't do well enough to be considered for a junior position sucks because I'm a mid level engineer.
I'm certain that my proxy worked well. I was able to push ~7 GB/s through it spread across 1000 connections on my local machine. It can do that with reasonable resource utilization, good latency, no race conditions, and no errors. I also wouldn't say my notes were skimpy. I could have written more but I wanted to be respectful of the reviewers time.
In fact I would rather you openly shame my submission here because at least then I would have the oppourtinity to reflect and improve. I hope this level of criticism isn't too much. I just wish that software engineering interviews could be more rational.
