I recently interviewed for an Embedded Linux role. Before the interview, I was informed that my profile was only about a 60% match for the position. Despite the partial alignment and the short notice, I was happy to participate and approached the interview with a positive attitude. The interview consisted of two technical interviewers. My interaction with the first interviewer was professional, respectful, and technically engaging. We had a constructive discussion, and I appreciated being able to openly acknowledge areas where I did not have detailed knowledge rather than attempting to bluff my way through the answers. Unfortunately, my experience with the second interviewer was quite different. During a discussion on processor vector tables, I explained that I had a high-level understanding of the concept but had not worked with it in sufficient depth to answer every detail. Instead of simply assessing my technical knowledge, the interviewer remarked that it was a "basic graduation-level question" and implied that I should have known the answer. I have no issues with being rejected based on technical fit. Interviews are meant to evaluate whether a candidate's experience aligns with the role, and not every position is the right match. However, there is a significant difference between evaluating someone's knowledge and making comments that come across as dismissive or belittling. My professional experience has primarily been in Embedded Linux application development, BSP integration, and working alongside device drivers. Engineers naturally develop expertise based on the problems they solve in their day-to-day work, and not every experienced engineer will have the same depth in every embedded domain. I hope the company continues to invest in interviewer training, as interviewers represent the organization's culture and values. A respectful technical discussion leaves candidates with a positive impression, even when they are not selected. Unfortunately, that was not my overall experience in this case.