Yes. Because there are lots of people with nice looking resumes who code poorly and have at best superficial knowledge of technology.
Nevertheless, every take home I accept I assume the default action of the receiver is to forget the effort and time that went into in, rejecting with no feedback. Horrible, but based on reality.
It is what it is, but I'm on a mission (getting the job) and unfortunately I do not hold all the cards.
If only there was a way to prove one's worth without having to spin plates while reciting 1000 digits of Pi EVERY TIME.
As with anything of value this is also a supply and demand thing. Perhaps in India, junior candidates' time is simply worth less. The author mentions they got 2.5K applications, so obviously this will affect how picky the company can (and should) be.
Time is the one resource that none of us can get more of. It is not saved, like money, to be spent on some future endeavors. It does not accumulate interest. It does not grow with market fluctuations. We get what we get and nothing more or less.
When an applicant has already taken the time to develop a resume that illustrates their skills along with a portfolio/repo that proves said skills, you callously dismiss that work and past experience by making them jump through hoops in your application process. This starts the conversation by telling the applicant you do not value their efforts thus far, whether you actually do or not. It's not a good foot to lead with.
Filtering through thousands of applicants is tough, no doubt, but if your company is successful enough to be receiving that many applicants for a position, then it is successful enough to hire and develop a robust HR or recruiting department that can vet these applications with actual human contact. Yes, this costs money, but if you want to make the omelette, you need to crack some eggs. If you cannot afford to take that path, then you cannot afford to grow, making it tougher to find quality applicants.