The interviewer's job (I was briefed beforehand) was to make sure I know my concurrency, because they use a lot of it there.

I have all the patience and time in the world to discuss my ideas.

I had the problems, the solutions, slide decks and a Miro board ready to go.

He wanted to shut down discussion at every turn with nonsense like "so you think no banks work at all?". Sure, I can grin and eat shit, or I can say "banks predate your CRUD operations by just a little bit".

If he had working knowledge on how to represent mutable money amounts in a distributed environment, he didn't let on. I was all ears.

So I pushed back on him, and I'll push back on you:

> even if you were technically correct why would a company hire someone...

Because I'm technically correct.

You're certainly not alone in your appraisal of the situation. The market over here works exactly this way. Correct, reliable systems come a distant second to agreeing with the team.

Technical discussions are incredibly likely to devolve into people discussions.

No people discussion has ever worked it's way back into being about fixing the broken software.

Pay him no mind. I shiver at the thought that he might be at management level and passed potential hires because they didn't not disagree in the way he liked.

If anything, you dodged a bullet from a potential job where nothing gets done correctly.

it's a strawman that the only two available options are the mutually exclusive "grin and eat shit" one or alternatively a heated argument

i stand by what i said here down-votes be damned; judging by our brief interaction and your telling anecdote you come across as a smug disagreeable know-it-all and in their position i wouldn't have hired you -- there is after all the option to hire someone who both knows their stuff and doesn't come across the way you do

Oh Revolut's down are they? Let me tell you about an interview I did with them. Blah blah blah. Yeah, no thanks.