I have not yet had a chance to read the letter and all commentary, but I hear echos of Max Howell’s “google didn’t hire me because I cannot invert a binary tree”.

It was obviously a rage post; it was obviously his impression of the interview (even though “inverting a binary tree”, being an ill-defined operation, is unlikely what they asked him to do).

And following that affair, my impression was that he wasn’t hired for reasons other than his programming abilities - being a team player (and specifically not being a loose cannon) matters at least as much.

I have no idea what the story is here, but taking one side or the other based on a single post (and prejudice) is not really helpful.

This isn't a post about, say, lock-free algorithms, which are, in nature, decoupled from human behavior.

Her attitude _is_ part of the contention itself; for example, there's mention of a career block because she was perceived as intimidating, there's frequent self-flattery, there's an unprofessional insulting of the employer, and so on. Her position is supposed to be covered by a people's person.

Of course, there is also at least one mention of colleagues' behavior that is, I suppose, straight illegal, and this is alarming.

As I wrote, verbatim, this supports an impression. I didn't write she's wrong.

In other words, in this scenario her tone adds extra information, discussing it is therefore not an ad-hominem.

It's literally trying to understand the truth from the messages