"It doesn't really measure what matters for job performance but tech pays well and so many people want to do it that you need barriers to entry. The real losers of the hiring process are the companies that waste lots of money on inefficient hiring practices."

The other losers are people who have skills and aptitude that is actually needed, but don't have the thing that interview measures. Yet other losers are people forced who have to work with those who ace interviews and get rewarded, but are not actually good in actual work.

The side note is not just that hiring don't really measure what matters for job performance. It is also that companies themselves don't really seriously care about it nor spend time thinking about it. That affects not just hiring, but also promotions and other rewards. Which in turn causes additional problems and unhealthy workplaces (excessive crunch being one of those, huge amount of socialization that is expected in some companies another, ridiculous technological decisions too and so on and so forth).