The goal behind these questions is not for you to find the right answer, unless the interview is about a specific topic where you should know the right answer.

The goal is to have information on your thought process, how you solve problems, and how you communicate.

- Assumptions you have

- Your ability to clarify ambiguities

- Your interviewing skills: with coworkers, clients, reports, managers, applicants, you spend a lot of time interviewing people to extract meaning, facts, context, information.

- How you frame a problem

- How you behave in unfamiliar waters: you will build things you can't find the answer to on Stack Overflow or in a blog post.

- Your awareness of tradeoffs: do you make decisions being aware of the tradeoffs involved, do you have magical thinking, or cult of the tool/framework.

>"How do you make sure that a celebrity's tweet reaches all of her followers in less than 3 seconds?". I had no idea, I have never handled that kinda scale.

Would you not like to tackle that problem and work on systems that handle that kind of scale? One argument against this is "who cares, they're not twitter so why are they talking about hypotheticals. They should interview me on what I'm going to do on the job". This is very valid, but there also is a counterpoint to this: this might stem from the desire of the interviewer not to be biased. If they quizz you on a problem they have been working on for the last year, they'll probably get frustrated by the fact you can't find the right answer to the questions. Or worse, they'd be impressed if you happen to find the exact solution they have converged to. You'll appear to be much much "smarter" than you are, and the expectations will be set high since you found the answer in a few minutes rather than a year. This is dangerous.

>I'm sorry if this is incoherent.

It's very coherent and understandable.

>I haven't even applied to jobs for weeks now, because in interviews I feel like I'm getting humiliated and I want to apologize and end them half-way.

We need to reframe this. If you put yourself in the shoes of whoever is interviewing you, they are trying to vet you because they care about their team, and they want to hire someone who will raise the bar of the team. From another perspective: if you were already in the team, wouldn't you want whoever is in charge of hiring to be an effective gatekeeper? Would you want a person who is impressed by an applicant spitting a few buzzwords and frameworks? That applicant then lands the job, gets assigned to your team, and becomes the reason you apprehend going to work? They may have been burned by past "bad" hires and have decided to tighten it up. People holding a team back, undermining decisions, commiserating while never explicitly voicing their concerns. This is a problem that must be prevented from happening, or dealt with swiftly if it happens.

Yes, they're not FAANGs but it's precisely that! They may be a small team in which you as a person are a large percentage of the workforce. If you are one in a team of 10, you represent 10% of the workforce. If you were at a FAANG, you'd represent a much smaller addition.

Furthermore, if it is a small team, it will hopefully grow, and you will take on more responsibilities, and you'll eventually hire people. They need to be very, very, disciplined about hiring people who will shape the future of the company.

It can be frustrating if you look at it from your perspective of someone who has a lot to offer and feeling humiliated, but that feeling is a very mutable reality once you factor in these different perspectives. Maybe even enjoy the interview, enjoy interacting with smart people, ask questions to learn new things, discover things you didn't know were a thing, and be glad for that team they have someone shielding them. You can ask them for feedback.

It is a fit that didn't happen between two pieces at a specific time and place. An impedance mismatch. If either of these changes, the fit could happen.

>I'm sure the problem is me, since other people are doing fine.

If one approaches it from a frame of rejection or humiliation, it can be extremely hard. This is like intimate relations. There are more productive and effective ways to approach these in terms of learning what you can from that interaction, wishing someone the best and to find someone who does it for them, fixing what is to be fixed, maintaining what is not to be "fixed", being courteous.

>* I need to draw a line and figure out some good indicators of when I should quit this industry, and anyone here who could give a few pointers on that, I would be thankful. I don't want to throw more time and resources into an industry where baseline expectations are something I can't/won't reach.*

OK, are you quitting the industry because you have a bad experience with the hiring process? If so, this can be fixed, and then if you want to quit, you can quit while in a good place.

Now, if even after that you still want to quit and you can't stand the "industry" anymore, you could amortize the experience you have and use it in your real passion. What's your real passion if you don't mind me asking?