Anyway, good luck with that.
So when was the last time your preferred language's sort function magically disappeared and you had to come up with your own?
The interviewing process is criticized so frequently because companies focus on petty questions that are unrelated to a candidate's ability to do the job.
FYI, responses like this serve only to confirm the initial impression that you're insufferable.
No offense intended to you. I doubt you meant it like this, but I got the same impression.
If a worker is going to work remotely, is it a better evaluation of her skill to have her do her coding test remotely or have her do it in the office? Likewise, is it fair to ask a potential remote worker to take on an endeavor that's much more cumbersome than it would be for an in-office worker.
The other part of the argument is that the hiring company may be affecting its ability to evaluate a candidate by subjecting him to a situation that's pretty different from the job's reality. Ostensibly, the point of having someone work out of the office is to see how well he'll do if he gets the job, but in the case of a remote worker, this may not be a good indicator.
I think all of this is highly debatable, and there's probably no right answer, but there is lots of food for thought!
I may have responded harshly, but certainly in kind.
The article was peevish, but I identify with the author's viewpoint. I suggest they interview with smaller companies, where for instance you can meet everyone and chat more informally. Like a startup.