Sad to say, this is exactly the sort of magic that, as the conclusion suggests, gets people not hired. Even on this very enlightened forum people argue in favour of less knowledgeable candidates (even with all else being equal).
Such a lack of imagination. Hire a good enough warlock, and requirements can be fulfilled at compile time - you just need well-typed customers, which is the tricky part.
I think you'd need the right kind of position for someone like this. Presumably, Criss wasn't trying to hire for a council of Haskell type-warlocks. Toss this person into a typical dev role, and you've got a recipe for boredom on their side and confusion on the part of the rest of the team.
The whole point _is_ that it's pointless esoterica.
Like music/art/religion/gourmet-cooking/morris-dancing/synchronized-swimming.
If it's "your thing", it's _wonderful_. It might not be your thing, and that's fine too.
If you're exclusively a bro-country fan, you probably don't appreciate jazz or classical - and that's OK, I hope you get immense joy from your bro-country music.
I took it as a commentary about how stupid tech interviews are. The scenarios all present a company rejecting someone who is clearly more skilled than the interviewer.
Yeah, well, that's based on a fallacy. You're assuming that there's a single scale and being more "skilled" on that scale means you should get hired.
But that's not necessarily what interviewing is all about. Type-level programming is cool but wildly inappropriate for most jobs - that's part of the humor.
You are not your job, or your resume, or your ability to pass an interview. There are all sorts of ways people can be elite that are mostly orthogonal to a particular job.
Functional programming elitism is an interesting convergence between old-school SICP-reading academic greybeards, and modern day Haskell hipsters who like purity in their languages. Both would like to hate on imperative-coding industry squares like the technical interviewers in all of these stories.
