Nothing is more indicative of a bullshit job than the interview

This part definitely rings true to me: "We have very little idea about what makes good code, so it should come as no surprise that we have little-to-no idea how to find people who are good at coding, along with the dozens of complementary skills."

I don't think you can judge a company just by the questions they ask in interviews. Judging a company by the way the interviewers interact with you is perfectly valid, but I wouldn't treat the questions they ask as indicative of anything more than how bad they are at interviewing.

Company's generally suck at interviewing. It isn't what most/many of the interviewers were hired to do and it isn't their core competency. You don't want them to judge you based how good you are at things that have little to do with programming. Conversely, you should cut the interviewer some slack on things thing that have little to do with what they do every day.

You and your interviewer have agreed to meet for a date at what turns out to be a bad restaurant. Make the best of it and look past the food.

Google had an admittedly poor interview process* (the puzzles turned out to be useless at predicting anything) yet Google is generally considered a perfectly nice place to work.

* They found that interviews poorly predicted performance of the candidate.

Seriously? More indicative of the amount/quality of resources available to the hiring process.