Yeah, devs that work for me also work in a critical environment such as yours. As soon as an issue is raised by our clients, they immediately kick off a 40 min

Yeah, devs that work for me also work in a critical environment such as yours. As soon as an issue is raised by our clients, they immediately kick off a 40 minute long timer and put a physical whiteboard in front of us asking us to solve the whiteboard problem in front of them in under an hour. All the while the client is physically behind us commenting on our code and watching our every move as we paint the whiteboard with a solution. This is literally what happens to me and my engineers on the Job. All of our code happens on the whiteboard (we don't use editors or keyboard or mice!.) The only thing we need to deliver to our client is a picture of our code on the whiteboard along with some trivial complexity analysis and our client pays us money for coding under pressure. Our interviews just consists of me doing the exact same thing as what happens on the job and therefore our interviews are 100% identical to our real life coding problems. When science tells someone that the interview process they've been conducting for years is essentially wrong people have to sort of remake reality and their own reasoning to justify the science rather than admit fault. Obviously, this isn't what's happening with me or you in this case.... the interview process at my company is 100% identical to real world scenarios so I'm good. I've always been telling everyone I know since before this article that I interview for anxiety not useless technical skills; anxiety is what determines whether a developer is great or not.