In my previous search, I had two interviews scheduled, one day after another, with different organizations which were diametrically opposite in outcome, though asked similar questions. It was the way they asked the questions, the body language of the interviewers, and for one of the interview sessions, a seeming desire to show that the interviewers were "smarter" than me.
In the first case, I got a nice offer. In the second case, I cut short the interview.
The questions were virtually the same. In the good interview, some silly fizzbuzz stuff, followed by "how do you do X", and me doing it. In the bad interview, do this thing, in bash. Had to read a man page on it, asked the interviewer if they had man pages, found out they didn't, asked if I could use the interwebs, at which point he became more flustered and overtly hostile. I then proceeded to solve the problem, while typing in vim, while talking him through the whole process. He was visibly angry and shaking after this. Tried a few networking questions, some of which I've known, some of which are far outside my domain, have never had a reason to study/investigate, and were completely unrelated to the task at hand.
The good interview asked me similar things, and when I indicated some of the boundaries of my knowledge, proceeded to work with me on how quickly I could learn something and become useful.
There is a huge difference in these organizations. One of them is thoughtful, has great people, and would be a terrific place to work at.
The other ... not so much. Later confirmed by talking to people who worked there.
Many people are justifying "hard" problems using various reasoning. When I ran my own company and hired, I never used this. What I wanted to see, was how something thought through something they've not seen/done before. This is what I cared about. Could they learn, and apply this learning, in situ, at high speed, and grow as a worker.
It seems my viewpoint is in the minority here, with a number of people preferring to test random knowledge fragments, as compared to actual ability to learn and apply what you learn. This is a shame. This generates groups whom are really good at recall, but possibly less so at applying this (as the "applying this" is not tested/measured).
I've seen the focus on velocity and accuracy of regurgitation in grad school. Test scores from people who focused on that were high. Capabilities as researchers ... quite low, with very rare exceptions.
The same effect is likely to occur in this scenario.
Technical interviews are hard. Probing depth of knowledge is challenging. Getting a sense of thought processes requires creating things that people can learn from, and apply.
I've had precious few interviews like this. Happy my current position is one of them.