I hope you are joking since the industry collectively knows how much employers/interviewers value algorithms-based coding interview, which doesn't correlate strongly with performance. Even if you are talking about senior positions where they don't matter, then you should know that people hire someone they know+like who did decently well, rather than the truly best on the market.

That's SF/Big Tech. The rest of the world basically works like the stated algorithm.

The coding interview comes usually after they vet your resume, any profiles, get you talk to an HR, and potentially check your references.

Even the coding interviews are just a signal against overall performance given a short amount of time. It's only a sample of data, but if you did your interview right you should be able to protect some against bad people getting very lucky. Just like driving a car; bad drivers tend to stay pretty bad, and good drivers tend to stay safe. Even though there's a lot of ways to define what is a good driver, there's clearer ways to define what is a bad driver, and if someone was a bad driver yesterday they are still probably a bad driver.

well, that's the thing though - coding interview is pretty much a yes/no thing. What rank you get is typically based on "what rank do you have now?" and "how much do we respect your current employer?"

I remember reading Steve Jobs used a "different" technique to figure out if someone was good.

He would go around to people and say "I heard Joe sucks". If the people strongly defended Joe, he was probably pretty good. If nobody stuck up for him, Joe might indeed suck.

Probably everyone would be silent as well if someone said "Steve Jobs sucks". This anecdote is meaningless TBH.