Tricky / complex interviews are a sign of internal political arms race and peacocking, nothing else. Absolutely great candidates fail all the time. Absolutely terrible candidates pass all the time.
Tricky / complex interviews are a sign of internal political arms race and peacocking, nothing else. Absolutely great candidates fail all the time. Absolutely terrible candidates pass all the time.
Where do you get this conclusion from? How wide does it apply? e.g. I can't agree with you that a "poor" portion of engineers at FAANG are actually great engineers.
They join with a big offer and it goes nowhere. They don’t know how to choose simpler methods, do things a bad fast way, be incremental, follow evidence from quick user feedback and only optimize when you really have to. Their output is poor, but because they see themselves as high status due to leetcode superiority, it just becomes a problem for everyone. Eventually they think the issue isn’t their poor output but rather some ceiling they are limited by and they quit.
Meanwhile plenty of other people do terribly badly at the dynamic programming / data structure trivia, but they are great at the actual job. They work incrementally, they are less prone to over-engineering or premature optimizations, they focus on the business impact, all while still writing clean, simple code and carefully picking their battles in terms of significant data structure work or optimizations.
The sheer randomness of outcomes leads to leetcode performance just being totally uncorrelated with success in the role as defined by any measure of business impact or effectiveness.