Its much faster now and a share function has been added for pre-loaded examples

That's reasonable, planning to add it tomorrow

Added

Thanks for the feedback, I haven't done much optimization in regards to the summary.

The screen real-estate of the summary has to be small so it is limited in the amount of information it can display but your example could be a good starting point to see how the key points can be better captured

Glad that it worked well for you! I don't have any general advice that would be useful but that sounds like an interesting project

Fair point, will add this tomorrow

Added

In other words, a ‘hack’

A hack has connotations of laziness though. This is the opposite.

The constraints of the situation may call for a ‘hack’ but it’s not an expression of laziness. It is a necessary action provided the circumstances.

Maybe Macgyver'ing it would be a more modern reference. Still pretty dated. Is there a word for what Phineas and Ferb do? That's not a good fit, but still has the same flavor.

Yeah it’s a language issue. There have been hacks that did express the idea but “hack” does get used broadly. Macguyvering conveys the concept well but as you say it’s reference is outdated so it’s lost some of its meaning.

in India, we would call it a "Jugaad"

If you're trying to use this and don't get the sign up email, check your spam folder. Gmail seems to auto-categorize the email as spam

The tech that you know has changed. We've moved well beyond programming languages and frameworks. Once you adapt to the frontier, your eyes will be opened to the revolutionary technology being developed right under your nose.

Having had quite a bit of experience on both sides of the equation, you’re absolutely right.

The very act of extrapolating how a person would perform based on a brief snapshot in time seems flawed. It is unreasonable to task the interviewer with making a good decision with barely any data.

I used to think that a well calibrated question bank or interview style could be a reliable signal. But the moment you ask something specific is the moment you don’t ask everything else. A poor performing but good candidate’s strengths could lie in the latter category and a well performing but bad candidate’s strengths could be in the former.

There needs to be a reliable and credible way to learn about a persons strengths and weaknesses based on their track record.

I’d weight credible reference checks, previous projects and credentials more than their actual interview performance.