What the article says makes sense but he's not disproving doing a coding test similar to what you may encounter on the job vs algorithms you'll implement once in a lifetime.

When I'm interviewing, I ask about their projects to see if they're passionate about something and then I test them on something I need to implement for work (or similar enough). It's often something like, implement an API endpoint that does X with Y database, implement this UI component. I'm happy to be flexible on language and technologies the candidate is familiar with.

If you think the job will be much more than that, you're simply wrong.

The closest I got to implement a leetcode exercise at work was when I had to implement pathfinding for a 3d game in a language that is not commonly used for games. Turns out my naive solution was poor, I duckduckgoed 5 minutes and implemented a way better algorithm from Wikipedia.

Besides: If I need to prepare for two months for your interview, I won't apply for your company. Even doing a take home exercise takes way less time than that, I can crank most of those in a couple of hours. Still, I'd prefer a real world exercise at the interview, so I don't need to prepare anything in advance.