IMO those interviews test whether you are smart "enough" and capable of collaborating to solve a problem. There's not that much knowledge required and good answ

IMO those interviews test whether you are smart "enough" and capable of collaborating to solve a problem. There's not that much knowledge required and good answers tend to be quite succint. Depending on what you do, maybe most of the time interview-like problems won't rise up, but not everyone is ok taking the risk of poor algorithm design on production. While it won't happen that a single engineer will need to do everything without any design or code reviews, if you keep "lowering" the bar you risk breaking the review failsafe. Maybe scaling the review process can enable teams having more engineers working "safely" as the hard problems will still be reviewed by the "elite" engineers those companies try hard to get. I hope this takes some pressure away on pretending to have "real" interviews needlessly. There's too many problems to be solved out there to be overly picky on who can work on them. It would be nice to hear back from MS after they a few years.