The one point where I agree is, in my view, the sole reason why big companies use algorithm-style interviews. FAANG-level companies can put out a job role and

The one point where I agree is, in my view, the sole reason why big companies use algorithm-style interviews. FAANG-level companies can put out a job role and have hundreds, if not thousands of people apply. Out of all of these people, there might be dozens of people with phenomenal CV's - relevant experience to the role, mastery of a programming language or two, public publications of their work, and provable experiences through living projects. You reach a point where it's not practical to compare these people through programming ability alone, and that's where the algorithm interview comes in. It allows companies to choose a suitable person while alienating good developers, because through sheer interest alone they can afford to do so. I just wish that more companies were honest about why this approach is taken, because it would stop startups asking you to find a join in two linked lists when the role itself is to maintain a shitty CRUD app. These companies cannot afford to alienate good developers because they're not getting the sheer amount of interest a Google or Facebook will get. Again, just my opinion, but people need to embrace the fact that interviewing isn't perfect. A code test should purely exist to ensure that you can weed out people that cannot do ANY programming. Outside of that, use the interview itself to determine their fit for the role.