I disagree. Fizzbuzz is actually a different beast in that it exploits the generality that people who can't think coherently in complex architectures usually can't think coherently in simple architectures either. It's also why I love it when an interviewee has never heard of fizzbuzz before; it means that I'll get a 100% true test of their ability to think in basic algorithms (i.e. they aren't regurgitating something committed to short term memory just before the interview - although that's usually easy to spot anyway).

Nano-questions, on the other hand, I don't see as useful at all. I spent 5 years writing enterprise Java applications, and I couldn't tell you what package List and File are in without looking them up. I've also been away from Java for a few years and have been using other languages, so I couldn't tell you for sure if the "inheritance" keyword is colon, parenthesis, "extends", "subclass", "specializes", or whatever. So in this case I'd get 0 out of 3, thus weeding out a proven, experienced, enterprise Java architect. Even if I had known the answers, I'd consider it a major red flag that such questions were even asked, as it would bring into question the interviewer's ability to think creatively (and no creative person wants an uncreative boss).