LinkedIn actually rolled out a new feature "Easy Apply" or something where all you need to do is click an Apply button and it (presumably) sends your profile information to the job.

It's possible to load up a traditional resume with 5-10 pages of granular detail like this, but that's actually more awkward than helpful. Once a (shorter) resume establishes basic competence, employers generally want to do the next round of screening based on face-to-face contact. Asking the resume to do all the work will lead you to hire the very best resume writers, rather than the very best candidates. (Note that strong passive candidates, who already have good jobs, do not spend a lot of time polishing their resumes.)

In non-technical fields, taking candidates through a face-to-face interview tends to be the best way of gauging grit, creativity, motivation, fit/compatibility, etc. That's especially true if the job specs are still fluid. In that case, a face-to-face interview lets both sides play around with the job description a bit.

Google is supremely good at coming up with engineering solution to engineering problems, and its decision to build an applicant tracking system is encouraging. But Google also is a bit prone to taking the same approach, no matter what. If we're talking about the full sweep of candidate assessment, that isn't an engineering problem.

LinkedIn has a PDF export and I see plenty of exported LinkedIn profiles when doing candidate interviews.

Seems to work for a lot of people.

We (Triplebyte) don't ask engineers where they've worked until the end of the final interview. It's the last thing we ask (after all the technical evaluation and scoring is done). We regularly find and pass great programmers who are totally self-taught (and would have been screened out by any resume screen process). We ask about previous work at the end because we want statistics on who is applying to us. This lets us compare our process to more traditional credential screens (I write about this on our blog)