Somehow we arent really adept at interviewing at what the day-to-day requirements of a position.
Instead were much more interested in edge-case stuff like bubble sort.
I wonder if this is some assessment of "are they capable of substantially more complex tasks, and if so, safe to assume they're capable of less-complex minutiae.
Seems about right, as often these evaluation type things are proxies.
The flip side is that in mature companies like the one I work for, where professional interviews are more of the rule, we don't get the best candidates, at least not right now. I could imagine that super attractive startups can afford to set the bar higher and still get enough applicants.
These kinds of anecdotes make me often wonder if candidates are "disqualified" for far more superficial reasons, and if interviewers hone in on pedantry like this to legitimize their reasoning perhaps even unconsciously. I have trouble believing most candidates wouldn't make at least one trivial mistake of that sort and I am equally reluctant to believe the same interviewers would disqualify any given candidate for a mistake so trivial.