I think it was homebrew, that one is famous: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=9695102" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=9695102</a><p>So why is this such a big deal? The assumption here is that passing a Google interview is &#x2F;the&#x2F; bar for success as a software engineer. Guy builds homebrew (success) and guy fails google interview (fail). Cognitive dissonance!<p>It&#x27;s not surprising that there are a diverse set of skills required for building good software, especially if one is playing every role by themselves. Then it&#x27;s also not surprising that at a large corporate environment, each one of these roles are usually taken on by separate people, and there is a lot more specialization. Then it&#x27;s not surprising that they&#x27;re ignoring all the other skills this person brings to the table - they&#x27;re probably going to be squandered. It&#x27;s also not surprising that a large corporation with a massive inflow of great candidates is going to have a diluted and uninteresting interview process because no matter what they&#x27;re doing, they&#x27;re going to get some good or at least motivated people one way or the other. It&#x27;s yet again unsurprising that they fail to take their own advice when their internal studies find out that brain teaser questions or questions that don&#x27;t have anything to do with the day to day work don&#x27;t really predict success, because I think a lot of people who are established there passed through that bar, and ascribe their success to it despite the evidence. So it&#x27;s a cultural change issue too.<p>Anyway, I got rejected by google when I was in college, and I took it personally at first, and now I don&#x27;t. I&#x27;m not really proud of it, but I&#x27;ve learned to not think lesser of myself because of it. I have a perfectly fine job that I enjoy and even more opportunities. So it&#x27;s possible!