My frustration at this type of interviews is more philosophical. In broad strokes, for some reason the employers desire and require a significant amount of effo

My frustration at this type of interviews is more philosophical. In broad strokes, for some reason the employers desire and require a significant amount of effort and training from potential employees so that those could (in theory) then solve complex problems for the company; but at the same time, employer's management _usually_ absolutely refuses to invest any noticeable resource in researching, designing and maintaining the processes they should be accountable for, including the recruitment. Which leads to the current state of IT/high-tech recruitment where things are, in most cases, so mismatched between ends and means, it's not even funny. It might be very entertaining to look at how people hiring for senior+ infrastructure roles (SRE, DevOps, what have you) try to use "leetcode" style stages - unless you are a desperate job seeker. (and no, I don't think an SRE or cloud infra engineer shouldn't be able to code, I just don't think leetcode-style tests are at all relevant as tests for that) And at the end of the day you end up with an engineering org where in the intake funnel they ask you to [competitively] solve variants of the knapsack problem, but once in, you end up solving it in the form of "how do I slice and dice a set of tickets within a completely irrelevant, misaligned and misunderstood "Agile" model so that can best pack SPs into a sprint and also do some actually useful work".