They still ask these questions...they were asking them in the 2000s, I actually assumed they stopped asking this stuff.
They demonstrate absolutely nothing. All they test for is whether you know enough about the recruiting process to know they are going to ask you some daft question about the number of windows in a city (this is called second-level thinking, it is useful in finance, it is always interesting that ppl who work in finance don't understand that...they usually ask these questions because someone asked them at their interview).
If you want to know whether someone can trade: ask them what they are trading already, and just sit them down at the desk and see what happens.
Investment banks are the grade-A example of terrible/illogical hiring (although one that largely achieves the goal of hiring more people like the people who already work at investment banks).
Also, thinking that you can master uncertainty isn't really the point. You can't. The whole discussion is pointless. It took me a very long time to realise that the neuralgia that people who work in finance have around uncertainty (largely a function of hiring practices at banks/educational background and including myself) was predictably profitable (the second-level thinking here is realising that someone lifting your bid/offers in a trading game doesn't represent reality because in reality, the person you are trading with under conditions of uncertainty doesn't have perfect information or even more information than you...so when uncertainty increases, the potential profit increases). Thinking that you can harness the vagaries of life and your own irrationality or poor decision-making skills is, however, common amongst people with a lot of education...and totally wrong (it is an irrational fear of uncertainty borne of a heavily structured life with prescribed questions and answers).