No wonder tech interviews these days are so bad.

In the emerging points of their business. Or “juniors” with some kind of valuable expertise to the interview.

Not, “just graduated web dev boot camp and have a fleeting interest in web3” junior.

Which is not at all what we're talking about here since the original comment talks about people with one or two years of experience.

It’s was an exaggeration, but the point still stands. Two years experience is “just graduated” into the workforce. The lifespan of a worker is 30+ years.

I think there’s also something important about that period where you’re moving from only doing what other people instruct you to do towards making decisions and supporting them over time.

It's certainly possible, more so in the early days, but it's relatively rare that you see a successful company continue to have people with only a year or two professional experience making hiring decisions. If those people have solid backgrounds that approach isn't necessarily disastrous but it'll be limited - e.g. a fresh CS major doing a startup will probably hire people who can create working code, but they're probably going to over-value certain academic characteristics over practical engineering and miss solid candidates or (worse) expose the company to liability. Inexperience can also just lead to things like hiring people who seem like they're someone you'd want to hang out with.

Note also that I would draw a distinction between 1-2 years of total experience and, say, someone transitioning from academia to industry. Someone who was, say, a successful grad student likely also accumulated a fair amount of other life experience that a 22 year old is unlikely to have.

The only consistent thing yet hear about the FAANG interview process is how universally bad it is, but also how you should just play along to get your $300k/yr salary.