Always this "if you have any complaints about Scrum then you aren't doing it correctly" with no explanation how you'd fix the problems I talked about.

Also the leetcode interview is cargo-culted from big tech companies like Google and Scrum is cargo-culted from big tech consultants. They don't fit well together, having both means your company just picked the most popular/simple way to do each part without considering why Google uses that interview or tech consultants uses Scrum. If you want your engineers to work on problems similar to at Google then you wouldn't use Scrum, and if you want your engineers to work on similar problems as big tech consultants then you wouldn't use the leetcode interview.

Scrum does not mean "no freedom" or "no autonomy" it just says lets think about what we're going to do and try to follow a plan for the next week or two. Of course the individual software developer should be the one responsible to forming, adapting, and updating this plan (and it definitely should contain " collaborate with stakeholders, build prototypes and get feedback etc,") (of course, there is some level of 'commitment'. As in other project management systems, you should try and do what you said you'll do).

If as you say, you had no autonomy/freedom, this has nothing to with scrum, that's just regular bad management.

Sanity check: Would your manager complain if you stopped doing Scrum? If yes then you don't got that much freedom. If no, then I can see it being fine. It can work fine if nobody outside of it depends or uses the Scrum process, but then the company isn't doing Scrum, just the team doing it internally. This lets the team adapt and stop doing Scrum when it no longer fits their problem etc, that is the agile way. My point was just that if a company uses both the leetcode interview and the tightly integrated Scrum process mandated on teams then that doesn't make sense.

Edit: And a job ad where they say you should be well versed in Scrum I take it as they will force Scrum on me regardless if it makes sense or not, because I doubt a team just doing Scrum for themselves would put that in a job ad. Companies loves putting this in their job ads though so it is very easy to spot which companies works like this.

"You can't stop using scrum without your manager complaining" is not the same as "zero autonomy".

In every Scrum team I’ve personally worked on (admittedly not a huge sample size), it was OK for a senior engineer to say that their work for the next two weeks isn’t scrum-able so they’re going to mark themselves as having no capacity this sprint.

Yes, and my point was that juniors at Google have more freedom to go and work on different things than seniors have in a typical Scrum team. The description for the junior role (level 3) at Google says that they go off and work on individual projects lasting no longer than 3 months. Having a project for a month or two isn't an exception, it is expected from juniors. Then as you advance levels you get more and more freedom, and as a senior IC you are basically a free agent expected to be able to find things to improve, write a design for that, sell it to the higher ups on the product, and then go and build it, possibly get a junior to build it instead as a few months project, possibly get headcount and set up a team to maintain it etc, on your own.

I'm not saying that this way is strictly superior, but you undeniably have way more freedom under it than Scrum.

You're in the scrum cult dude, get over it.

Scrum is like communism, it doesn't work, stop obsessing over it.