Where do you stand on this question?
An employer is interviewing for a position. They have five interviews scheduled. Interview #3 is fantastic, and the interviewer's experience tells them that the other candidates won't beat #3.
If you were candidate #4 or #5 and your interview hasn't happened yet -- say it's scheduled for later this week -- would you rather that the employer continue on with your scheduled interview, even though now they're pretty sure it's going to be a waste of your/their time because they're almost definitely going to offer the position to the other candidate (who appears certain to accept)? Or would you rather they not make you put in the time when it's so unlikely to pay off?
(Assume for the sake of the question that if candidate #3 turns down the offer, the employer will resume the remaining interviews.)
I could argue this either way, but ultimately -- if I'm that sure about candidate #3 -- I'm on the side of not wasting people's time.