I used to disbelieve hiring managers regularly encountered candidates who actually couldn't code, or whatever other basic technical thing was reported on their resumes. Such a possibility - even the audacity of it on a conceptual level - simply seemed beyond the pale for me. I had interviewed before and not done well, and that I could absolutely understand. But I had no way of relating to the idea of someone entering an interview without the fundamental mental schema requisite for doing the job.

Then I started interviewing people for engineering and security engineering roles. That's when I realized that unless you put a lot of effort into curating your candidate pipeline, you interview engineers who literally (without exaggeration!) cannot complete anagram toy programming questions in their "favorite languages." That was a sobering moment for me.

I'm in agreement that a lot of tech hiring is suboptimal, selects for noisy heuristics and is even (sometimes) sadistic. But I've also met engineers - typically people who have not done interviewing or hiring much - who think that reports of fizzbuzz failures have been greatly exaggerated. They have not been exaggerated.

I haven't interviewed anyone in over a year, but back when I was doing it weekly I used to mentally sigh with relief when the candidate I was talking to could actually approach technical questions, even if they ultimately didn't give winning answers. It is a sad reality indeed; the bar is low enough that you have an edge by merely engaging with the problem and reasoning about it with technical competence in an interview.