These companies are following the universally efficient strategy for life, to be as bad at everything as you can get away with. Interviews like this aren't good at anything they're meant for, but the companies that use them keep succeeding, so why would they stop?

Many of us here have been complaining about all this stuff and calling out the problems for over a decade. We've been right these interviews are terrible at testing candidates, and they've been right that it completely doesn't matter.

The fact we're still complaining means these companies are right about what works for them to stay competitive and stay in business.

Yes. On principle, survival in many ways is "right".

But also, these little things aren't useful. But having been on the other side of the table, there are too many candidates you can't do basic programming, debugging, or logical thinking. So you dial it back, where do these people fall down? Often, they fall down at elementary questions like these "nano questions" and people who can do all these, these "nano questions" always known. They are proxy questions that act with a high degree of correlation to the people who I want.