In the past that was fine, candidate pool was large enough that a heavy-handed filter was okay. That may be changing.
It is much more important for a company to filter out likely low performers than it is to avoid filtering out likely high performers, because the costs of hiring an incompetent person are enormous. Not only do they not produce as much, they eat up others' bandwidth by asking too many questions, implementing super buggy code, or not communicating effectively. They make other people on the team feel like they're not pulling their weight. They're a pain to fire depending on company culture and laws.
This process is designed to overfilter and maintain an A-player roster as much as possible, vs putting butts in seats. It's hard to tell whether the pool is exhausted here - by some indications, there's a lot of attrition but also a lot of hiring...
This is why these big companies do it, because it is actually quite hard to be fired from someplace like google whereas at these small companies you'll be working directly with the owners.
Also people will do all these take home tests and 5 rounds of algo interviews and CCAT tests ... etc for large well known companies as it is prestigious to work for them. They literally won't do them for small companies. For small companies unknown companies all you'll get is desperate people you are actually filtering out all the decent candidates. I went through this process last year it's very hard to hire as a small unknown company.