If an applicant gets an interviewer who doesn't do the current frat pledge rituals that some CS students (with little/no industry experience) 20 years ago thought would be a good way to gatekeep who could work in industry...
I'd say that the interviewer seeing past that is a very good sign you might want to work with that person. And that person's implicit endorsement of the company is also a good sign for the company.
Separately, responding to something else in the comment... if an interviewer is actively sabotaging their own company's process.. Is the company very broken in this and possibly other regards? Is the company not able to fix itself, to the point of guerilla insurgencies, rather than constructive dialog and processes? Why is this person still there? Why do they think that sabotaging an applicant's individual aspirations is a good idea? Is the company so bad that discouraging the applicant is deemed almost certainly in that person's interests? Or does the person not care how this affects the individual applicant?
I'd say that the interviewer seeing past that is a very good sign you might want to work with that person. And that person's implicit endorsement of the company is also a good sign for the company.
Separately, responding to something else in the comment... if an interviewer is actively sabotaging their own company's process.. Is the company very broken in this and possibly other regards? Is the company not able to fix itself, to the point of guerilla insurgencies, rather than constructive dialog and processes? Why is this person still there? Why do they think that sabotaging an applicant's individual aspirations is a good idea? Is the company so bad that discouraging the applicant is deemed almost certainly in that person's interests? Or does the person not care how this affects the individual applicant?