Anecdotal on my part, but I interviewed with them earlier this year. I was told by the recruiter (an internal recruiter, to be clear, not a third-party), in no uncertain terms, that their interview process did not involve "leetcode-style problems" and would, instead, be a "real world problem" close to what an engineer might be expected to solve normally.

I was told (and this was reflected in the interview prep materials they provided) that bringing my own IDE and screen-sharing was the norm, although they would be prepared with a collaborative online editor as backup. It would be a collaborative session where the interviewer would work through the problem with me (obviously with myself in the driver's seat).

I was reasonably excited. Finally, a tech firm that didn't cargo-cult leetcode hazing.

And then came the interview.

I leave it to the reader to guess at the nature of the problem (hint: it starts with 'l'). The interviewer also seemed entirely unprepared and surprised that I was prepared with my own IDE. They were also unwilling to collaborate, and unwilling to accept how I approached solving the problem (I like to write experimental pseudo-code out first as I think through things, especially when in an environment where drawing things out isn't easy. I let them know that was what I was doing and explained my thought process as I wrote it, and yet they kept interrupting and explaining that I could clean that code up... code that was not meant to be "final" or "complete"...)

It was just a terrible experience from beginning to end. From the recruiter presenting an interview plan that was clearly not in line with reality, to the interviewer being unprepared for what their own interview prep materials described (BYOIDE!), to the interviewer's unprofessional and very unhelpful demeanor (if day-to-day engineering at Stripe involves being berated at every step as you prototype a solution to solve a leetcode problem before preparing to write the actual solution...well, maybe they should fix that)