I signed up for a dedicated coaching program with interviewing.io and ended up getting a refund because I didnt think they were actually very good at coaching.
The platform seems like its mostly useful for people who are already good at technical interviews, or at least good at solving technical problems, and just need practice writing code in front of other people or in a live setting.
Has anyone used interviewing.io with good/great results?
I did a 10 session package (got it on sale) that focused on (distributed) system design and ML system design. I felt confident in the coding piece, but I didn't have the opportunity to work on large scale systems in my previous role. I believed that I could obtain a sufficient level of knowledge by self-study and practice, but I also have a toddler that takes up a lot of time and energy, so I wanted to be more efficient. I think it was valuable to absorb knowledge from a mentor that has real experience working in my target role. It turned out that was very successful in my real interviews. I think that I would have still done OK had I not done the interviewing.io, but, by my estimate, the return on investment was high, since I received multiple offers and negotiated up.
e: I wanted to add that my mentor and I decided that we would do 4 pure teaching sessions, and then the remainder would be partial mock interviews that would transition over sessions from them doing most of the talking to me doing most of the talking. I found this format to be good for building my own confidence.
Therefore, grand pronouncements about how the universe is "really" a static four-dimensional object "because that's what relativity says" are just wrong, for the exact same reasons.
Perhaps even in the "not even wrong" sense, on the grounds that it is no different than taking Newtonian physics and making ground pronouncements about the nature of the universe. Newtonian physics implies things like "there can be no absolute speed limit in the universe"; not just that there isn't one, but that there can't be one for the transforms it uses to be valid. There is such a speed limit and the transforms it uses aren't valid. Declaring the universe to have this or that characteristic based on relativity is no different than declaring it must not have a speed-of-light because that's what Newtonian physics says. The only difference is that "everybody" knows the latter is wrong; the former is just as wrong.
So in general getting too worked up over what Einstein's relativity says about the universe at this level is a waste of time, no pun intended.
Science history being what it is, it is quite likely that if we ever do penetrate down to what time "really" is it'll be even more mind-blowing than a static four-dimensional universe, but that's a problem for the future. (And the current leading contenders in that theory race I'm not sure are any more disruptive than QM already was. Total chaos space/time at scales so small that they are in some sense literally microscopically microscopically microscopically microscopic may be vaguely unsettling, but to my mind doesn't seem to add anything philosophically material that QM didn't already introduce.)