Actually, it might be helpful for you to understand that an overwhelming majority of good interviewers are evaluating you on far more signals than just the literal correctness of your answers.
The interviewer's job is to assess whether you're going to work out and be an asset to the organization. They also assume that what you're showing in the interview is a much rosier picture of yourself than you'll normally be.
So if you're late for an interview, the interviewer has to assume you're gonna be late to stuff all the time. If you can't solve your connectivity problems, the interviewer has to assume you're gonna have all sorts of other problems that will drag down yours and the team's productivity. It also shouldn't surprise you if you bad-mouth your old employer, the interviewer is going to assume that you're insanely negative and divisive. etc. It's not "being judged" - the company has to make a high-risk high-impact decision to hire you, and your behavior may just "leak" the information that you're not a good bet.
You may think this is unpleasant but it's just fact of the decision making process. If you make it harder for people to say "yes" to you, you will get "no" much more often. Simple as that.
>> to do with respect to their time and money
I don't understand the "money" part. Are you paying companies to interview you? This is a sure sign of a scam.
> Actually, it might be helpful for you to understand that an overwhelming majority of good interviewers are evaluating you on far more signals than just the literal correctness of your answers.
That’s a two way street though. If a candidate gets the feeling that they’re being judged for things that are outside of their control, they might decide that you or your company isn’t worth dealing with. And in this labor market, the candidate might have more options than the hiring manager does.
Some of the things you’re talking about are well within the normal bounds, such as timeliness. But some of the stuff you’re talking about edges up to the “not your business” line. If I felt that an interviewer got annoyed at me for an internet issue, I certainly might come to the conclusion that they’re unreasonable and take a pass.
(I also think your comment is a bit patronizing. I suspect that most people who have interviewed are aware that they’re being judged on more than just their answers)
The interviewer's job is to assess whether you're going to work out and be an asset to the organization. They also assume that what you're showing in the interview is a much rosier picture of yourself than you'll normally be.
So if you're late for an interview, the interviewer has to assume you're gonna be late to stuff all the time. If you can't solve your connectivity problems, the interviewer has to assume you're gonna have all sorts of other problems that will drag down yours and the team's productivity. It also shouldn't surprise you if you bad-mouth your old employer, the interviewer is going to assume that you're insanely negative and divisive. etc. It's not "being judged" - the company has to make a high-risk high-impact decision to hire you, and your behavior may just "leak" the information that you're not a good bet.
You may think this is unpleasant but it's just fact of the decision making process. If you make it harder for people to say "yes" to you, you will get "no" much more often. Simple as that.
>> to do with respect to their time and money
I don't understand the "money" part. Are you paying companies to interview you? This is a sure sign of a scam.