* Author doesn't have a name

I would have led with your skepticism. This story reads like concept art poking at our empathy to send us through an emotional journey. I know my reading journey took me through the sadnesses of so many of the interviews in my life and the dysfunction that gets pushed in our industry. I have wondered whether this is part of psychological positioning and pre-negotiation or simply emotional, psychological, or/and organizational ineptitude.

> * Author claims to speak English very poorly, but writes incredibly well! Maybe they leaned on LLMs, but this seems pretty good even for an LLM. The author claims their pronunciation is poor. Writing is a completely different skill. (Especially in English with its insane spelling rules.) > * Author says they have 2 years of work experience in a company that doesn't use Typescript, but then proceeds to create a solution ad-hoc that requires incredibly deep knowledge of the type system. Certainly not impossible, but I don't know anyone that could pull this off. Self-study?

Looking up the domain shows that OP's write-up was posted on reddit by a similarly named account with relatively little activity, but history going back a good 8 years. Sometimes people just haven't gotten around to setting up a full website with a portfolio, which is fine.

Been interviewing for over a decade. Tests like this do not really tell you whether someone is a good programmer, they tell you whether a person has spent a lot of time practicing problems like this. The only way to tell if someone is good at the job is to have a conversation with them and pay attention to how they answer your questions. Ask your candidate their opinions on API interface design or whether they favor mono-repos. A good candidate will be able to speak legibly and at length about these things. The problem is that in order to judge those responses you also have to be very knowledgeable. So instead we have stupid little tests designed to let interviewers of varying ability screen candidates.

> but writes incredibly well! The post actually has a lot of small grammatical errors typical of someone not so fluent in English: >> My reasoning went as follow: // My reasoning went as follows . >> Is there any other numbers where this happens? // Are there any other numbers >> I didn’t had paper at hand // I didn't have (any) paper on hand. I'm not here to proofread a fun blog post but it's far from incredibly well-written English. > that requires incredibly deep knowledge of the type system. I think the solution needed more clever maths than deep knowledge of the type system---the type system knowledge can be self-studied from documentation. The clever maths, one can get used to if you Leetcode properly (you don't even need Leetcode Hard to get exposure to that). If anything doesn't track in this respect, it's the claim that author doesn't have any kind of formal education. Not even …

I don't think they write incredibly well, they write coherently but there were quite a lot of errors.