That is a hopeful idea but I feel it might be our naivety that propagates it. To my understanding Google's interviews have gotten easier and more arbitrary per

That is a hopeful idea but I feel it might be our naivety that propagates it. To my understanding Google's interviews have gotten easier and more arbitrary perhaps over time. The competition is high and thus there is the expectation of having studying to pass. Google is famous in the end. Consider there are the following cases (kind of complete): a) New employees hired are not brilliant b) Google doesn't want to hire brilliant employees thus the leetcode interview c) Leetcode has little effect on "they are brilliant" check, so a different trait is selected and indirectly brilliance distribution inside of Google is different but not the main one affected d) Even if Google was full of brilliant people it wouldn't matter; they have no power over what happens by design (or inadvertently) Google is huge. The main job of everyone there, I claim, is to not screw up the money maker: ad auctioning. After that they can do as they wish. The job of every manager there is to make sure that doesn't happen. Innovation is next. And they do innovate but not on things that make enough money to sustain. There is no direction thus. As evidence I provide the following. They have been throwing ideas at the wall for years trying to see what else sticks even as close to the ad auctioning and data collection scheme and they kill what doesn't appear to. Thus, their reputation of killing things.