I feel like this topic comes up every single time interview processes are discussed. Lots of people complaining "that process is too onerous! How do they expect me to invest that much time! In person coding problems are worthless!" And I don't necessarily disagree with that, but I do wonder what a lot of folks then expect a good process would look like while still allowing the employer enough information to make a decision.

Oxide can obviously impose a 9 hour interview process because they're a good enough company that lots of smart, motivated people want to work there and thus good candidates are willing to endure that process. Lesser companies obviously can't impose that process because there aren't enough good candidates willing to endure it.

My main point being, different strokes for different folks. If you think that process is too long, great, find a company with a less time consuming process. But Oxide's process obviously seems to work well for them, so I think it's pointless to complain about it (note I don't really think that's what you are doing, but a bunch of reply comments certainly are).

Joel Spolsky said it 20+ years ago: The primary goal of the hiring process is to avoid bad hires, even if you need to turn away potentially excellent hires. If you want to hire insanely good people, there is no alternative to a very onerous process.

This is the same argument that says YouTube can play 3 unskippable ads, TVs can scan and collect data on all devices in your LAN, because they're a private company and can do what they want, and if you don't like it, just don't buy it. Well in that case, I can also smoke in front of kids, because I am a free agent and there's no laws saying I can't.