I think the problems no one else has to solve is perhaps a slight exaggeration as no doubt people at google, facebook etc.. working on big problems at scale could perhaps make similar claims. Perhaps problems that no one else has to solve outside of a select few big tech companies might be more accurate?
True, someone could be competent but lazy etc.. but re: that last part, that's something Amazon and some of the other big-name tech places have the luxury of, lots of candidates, they can choose to be picky.
Not necessarily, the purpose of these interviews is to minimise type 2 errors when hiring - they don't care as much about rejecting people who might well have been good hires, they really don't want to hire people who turn out to be bad hires though as they waste time, resources etc.. and that is costly.
That's not what I've seen of people who've worked at these sorts of firms, they're not necessarily guaranteed to be the best (plenty of very good technical people who haven't worked at those firms too) etc.. but they're generally at least pretty competent - they fact they've got through the filter to get into one of those sorts of firms and lasted there for a bit speaks for itself most of the time.
Then again, there's an argument that you can run a longer process and still not really get beneath the surface. That you'll only ever really find out how good someone is when they start working, meaning there's little point wasting a lot of time up front. So if you do have a longer process, it needs to be well structured with each stage adding value and building greater confidence. You also need to be attracting enough applications that losing a few good candidates along the way to more streamlined processes elsewhere doesn't matter.
True, someone could be competent but lazy etc.. but re: that last part, that's something Amazon and some of the other big-name tech places have the luxury of, lots of candidates, they can choose to be picky.
If someone can spoof you in one interview then they can do it for twenty.
Not necessarily, the purpose of these interviews is to minimise type 2 errors when hiring - they don't care as much about rejecting people who might well have been good hires, they really don't want to hire people who turn out to be bad hires though as they waste time, resources etc.. and that is costly.
Considering the absolute muppets you see getting hired I think you say its not a fool proof process.
That's not what I've seen of people who've worked at these sorts of firms, they're not necessarily guaranteed to be the best (plenty of very good technical people who haven't worked at those firms too) etc.. but they're generally at least pretty competent - they fact they've got through the filter to get into one of those sorts of firms and lasted there for a bit speaks for itself most of the time.