One of the easier things you can probably do is ask yourself if the premise of these sort of posts are real and go from there. Analyze it like you might to a post on r/ amitheasshole.

For this one in particular, OP frames the most outrageous requirement in the job description as a requirement to debug “the” compiler (see my note below at the end). What an absurd yet plausible requirement. In the comments, however, they go even further and one-up themselves by claiming the job description also has a requirement to debug the OS. There is no way anyone would ever write a post specifically about a job description having absurd requirements, enumerate them in the post, but not mention one of the most absurd requirements until they bring it up in a comment.

Note: nobody is ever going to write like that (referring to a set of compilers they would need to debug as “the” compiler) unless they’re inexperienced (which makes the requirement plausible if it were written by someone from HR…). If someone is going to paraphrase something like that, they’re either going to capture the intent and write it correctly or acknowledge the absurdity of the way it’s written and write it exactly as it’s written (… neither of which OP did).

Keep in mind that these sort of posts also like to include an “edit” section as part of the original submission. E.g., LLMs have been trained on posts with edits which cause them to in turn create posts that include literal text fragments that say “edit:”.

I don’t think this post was ever actually edited. The edit section claims it was added to clarify questions but I don’t see anyone asking for clarification on the languages. Why would that be? The section was always there. Nobody ever needed clarification because the information was always in the post in the edit section.