What's most illuminating about those kinds of comments is they rarely even try to view thing from the hiring company's perspective. Having been in that boat, you'll find:
1. The cost of a mishire is huge. And, even worse than hiring someone who is downright awful is hiring someone who is just plain mediocre, or slow. I mean, I've hired diligent, hard-working, otherwise smart people who could only get stuff out the door at about a third the rate of other devs. Having a performance discussion with those folks can be extremely difficult, because oftentimes there is little they can realistically do to go faster.
2. Experience can have little correlation with proficiency. I've interviewed people who were "senior engineers" and "architects" at major corporation who couldn't code FizBuzz, moreover they could barely code a syntactically correct function in their chosen language.
3. Many companies want to diversify their employee base by going outside just friends/referrals and well known college programs, but to "take a chance" on other folks means they need to get a strong signal during the interview process.
I'm not saying there aren't problems in hiring, but given how there is a giant economic incentive to make hiring as accurate and efficient as possible it's at least valuable to attempt to understand why a company might interview the way it does.