Yes, we know this. The question remains: how should we interview and hire people in order to end up with the best possible software?

I have no idea how well this idea might stand up, but I loved how I was hired in a kitchen forever ago.

Someone mentioned me to the boss. I get called in for an interview. We chat for 15 minutes. I’m then “hired” for six weeks full paid work, but by default after those six weeks I was done. No more hours scheduled. Unless he said he wanted me to stay on and I said I wanted to stay on.

What I liked is the subtle change in expectations caused by the default to be that you don’t stay hired after some trial/training period. What I did was check in on how they felt about me and got a good feel for if I needed to keep looking for jobs or not. And if I liked working there.

I guess you could describe it as a very short contract with the idea that there’s a full time role meant to be filled.

I can imagine many ways in which this can be exploited or gets ridiculous with how many months of training some companies need. I think it’s their own loss being so inflexible or untrusting or acting in bad faith.

I don't think current employment law allows, but as a software candidate I'd much rather assess the company/team fit on a trial basis as well. (Am neither a lawyer nor HR)

I wonder what some solutions might be?

licensing and accreditation is an option.

make a society of software developers, akin to the bar association and so on, and have developers enter the society to show a certain bar of skill.