“I've had to relearn coding to get through the new interviews”

The fact that the diamond in the wedding ring is worthless is actually a feature.

Interview is hard. A while ago there was a post by Jane Street that explicitly emphasized this point. They also require algorithms questions even though programmers there write a lot of OCaml. I guess if you were in the position of the interviewer it would also be hard for you to come up with alternatives that are much better for all sides involved.

My understanding is that those companies themselves also freely acknowledge that interviewing is hard. Due to the sheer volume of applicants, fast algorithms questions is the most reasonable compromise they can find at the moment. If you were in the position of the interviewer, it would also be hard for you to come up with an alternative that works for all sides involved. So instead of complaining about this reality, one needs to face up to the challenge.

It is actually a paradox: You seem to be unfree and doing something pointless when you were grinding interview questions. But after you've made it, it would suddenly be very easy for you to have a lot of freedom and security in your life with all the capital you have accumulated. In a sense it's like how college entrance exams work. It's unfortunate but again, if no better practical solution could be found at the moment, one just has to face the reality and do it. It could even be fun. Talking about "ideals" wouldn't get you anywhere in the real world.

Regarding work-life balance, perks and life quality, just as the comments who replied to you pointed out, working for big tech is most likely one of the best options you can have out there, compared to many smaller-scale companies.

The one valid thing I think you may get by not working for FAANG is complete freedom in shaping what you're working on. However this is hard anywhere unless you're the founder/executive of the company yourself. If that's what you're after and you have the safety to pursue it, sure. However, in terms of working as a common employee, there are very few possible reasons why a place could be better than big tech.

Feels to me there are a lot of stereotypes and misconceptions about FAANG floating around in this thread, which I guess is not exactly surprising given the type of post this is (criticism of the "broken" interview process).

In your case it's more understandable if you wouldn't like working a conventional job, since you mentioned you're not neurotypical (though I guess you would most likely find work at most smaller software shops even more suffocating).

However, for the majority of commentators, it almost feels like some people find excuses to not even try, or have some sort of sour grape mentality/avert their eyes from the issue, if they feel themselves unlikely to pass the interview, even though they haven't spent the time required to master the algorithms questions at all. (Of course, there might also be people who simply find it quite hard to find such time, as mentioned in the article, which is understandable.)

My understanding is that those companies themselves also freely acknowledge that interviewing is hard. Due to the sheer volume of applicants, fast algorithms questions is the most reasonable compromise they can find at the moment. If you were in the position of the interviewer, it would also be hard for you to come up with an alternative that works for all sides involved. So instead of complaining about this reality, one needs to face up to the challenge.

I would conjecture that most lower-paying "programming" jobs, e.g. writing enterprise Java, are much much more "assembly line" and "soul-sucking" than jobs at top-notch tech companies, which should offer a decent amount of creativity and freedom for one as an ordinary employee.

It is actually a paradox: You seem to be unfree and doing something pointless when you were grinding interview questions. But after you've made it, it would suddenly be very easy for you to have a lot of freedom and security in your life with all the capital you have accumulated. In a sense it's like how college entrance exams work. It's unfortunate but again, if no better practical solution could be found at the moment, one just has to face the reality and do it. It could even be fun. Talking about "ideals" wouldn't get you anywhere in the real world.

The one valid thing I think you may get by not working for FAANG is complete freedom in shaping what you're working on. However this is hard anywhere unless you're the founder/executive of the company yourself. If that's what you're after and you have the safety to pursue it, sure. However, in terms of working as an ordinary employee, there are very few possible reasons why a place could be better than big tech.

A public group actually makes it easier for people to avoid defecting. It's very difficult for a job candidate to talk to employers about this when you're just some lone weirdo with idiosyncratic principles. It's much easier to have that discussion when there's a public group of people you can point to with the same principles. There's strength in numbers.

Consider it a kind of "Alcoholics Anonymous" for interviews. You wouldn't say that can't work because people defect. Yes, people defect and drink again, but they joined AA in order to avoid drinking, and the purpose of the group is to help them with the goal of not drinking. And also to remove the private shame of admitting a problem, by showing publicly that it's a very common problem. This is not a perfect analogy by any means, but the gist is similar.