Throysksk282

If you have to sit down and deeply think about a question like fizzbuzz then as an interviewer I'd be a bit concerned - this is a quick check to make sure you're basically competent, not architecture of a critical piece of infrastructure.

If you just don't like hand writing and prefer typing, then that's cool with me and you can just do that during the interview (the content of interview is important, not the medium you write with).

If you're mentoring a 25 year old you'll have to prove yourself to them every day.

I've seen too many people who clearly have been coasting for 20 years (or people who are simply applying to a position that's not actually aligned with those 20 years of experience).

Those 24 year old interviewers are the ones you'll have to train, so you need to, at minimum, be able to do their jobs.

I find it kind of shocking that you are a senior engineer at Google and are unable to write fizzbuzz.

Every senior engineer I've worked with including myself is able to write a for loop with a few lines of code in the body, because doing basic coding like this is important when training new grads and doing code review (not to mention when writing your own code).

On the flip side, I've been interviewing people with supposedly 15+ years of experience using simple whiteboard questions for a while and I've seen too many people fail miserably at writing basic for loops (a very slightly more involved problem than fizzbuzz, really) for me to simply trust that spending time selling you on the company is useful. Lying on a resume is easy, and even truthful resumes can be misleading. Screening candidates with a half hour of simple coding gets rid of a lot of people who seem to be making money without actually knowing how to write code, which is a problem when you're hiring people to write code and help others write code.