The first two items there contradict each other. What’s an employer to do? This list of problems only reflects the point of view of a relatively inexperienced candidate who doesn’t like interviews, it’s not a list of problems that companies have, or that people with strong skills and experience have.
It’s an assumption to expect interviews need to reflect the work on the job or match daily tasks. Interviews are the employer trying to select the best candidate for an uncertain future, not mimic the drudgery of a day in the life at work. If I’m interviewing, I don’t want to know if you can code a specific task today, I want to know how well you can adapt to changing roles, whether you’re more extroverted lead material, or introverted and wicked smart or prolific, whether you’re ambitious or happy laying low. I’m much more interested in broad potential more than ability to perform technical tasks.
Isn’t the last item on your list a good reason to do some due diligence by checking whether people can code in practice before going through the expensive process of hiring them and having them fail and then having to try again with someone else? I haven’t seen a lot of outright lying on resumes, but I’ve seen a ton of overconfidence in one’s relative skill, I’ve seen people who are great on paper but duds in practice, but more than those I’ve see a lot of people who don’t communicate well, don’t get along well on a team, have bad attitudes, cover up mistakes instead of learning or admitting skill gaps, etc.
I don’t know what it means to claim most jobs don’t require proving skills. Most jobs are entry-level minimum-wage jobs. Anyone in the arts is used to constantly proving their skills via auditions, critiques, performances, etc. Doctors have it way worse with low paid grueling residency. We’re talking about high paid programmers where hiring the wrong person is an expensive mistake and can damage team productivity.