Can you please make your substantive points neutrally, without being a jerk? There's no need for the latter, even if you're 100% correct.

▲

dgacmu a day ago | parent [-]

Sorry - I really wasn't trying to be a jerk, but I do acknowledge that directly addressing the author is aggressive.

I was mostly trying to emphasize the importance of avoiding the negative experiences of people interviewing when the interviewer was wrong about something and won't flex, as exemplified in a couple of comments in this thread:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48839767

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48840261

So to clarify my point in a more general way: We _all_ have some concepts wrong in our head, and we should all strive to be not only graceful but delighted if an interviewee is correct when we're wrong.

	▲	dang 20 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I appreciate the reply! and yes, that's a much better way to express the point. (Btw this is an interesting phenomenon - I call it the rebound effect: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...)