> If our police forces are failing to press charges against rapists, shouldn't that be a big priority to change?

The stereotypical case of rape would involve two people who know each other, may have had a prior intimate relationship, and then did something behind closed doors with no witnesses. One person will claim it was consensual sex or, failing that, that they had a reasonable yet mistaken belief that it was consensual sex. The other person will claim it was non-consensual sex, and that the first person did not have a reasonable believe that consent was present.

What are the police meant to do with that? Both parties agree that they were together, in the room, behind closed doors, and had sex; the disagreement hinges over extremely specific details about what was said and how it was interpreted. Classic police tools (checking alibis, interviewing witnesses, pulling security camera footage to track someone's movements, speculating about motives, following money, running DNA tests, checking forensics) are all totally useless here.

It's possible the justice system is failing to bring charges in cases where there is a strong chance of proving a crime occurred beyond reasonable doubt, but the nature of rape makes most cases extremely hard to prove, as the linked example makes clear. Here:

"The [woman's] colleagues took her out for drinks [...] after a night of drinking, she crashed with a male intern and his friend who lived in a group house nearby. She fell asleep in the basement [...] but during the night [...] the male intern [...] “forcibly penetrated her while she was sleeping”."

That's her story and I have no reason to think it's false. But here's the thing: All the guy has to do is say is something like "oh, I went down to check on her, she was awake, we chatted a bit, she seemed sober, we flirted, I propositioned her, she said sure, we had sex, I gave her a kiss, and left her to sleep" (or some variation of that; basically anything that expresses a reason why a reasonable person in his shoes would have believed she was consenting). And here's the thing: His story doesn't need to be true; it just need to be possibly true, because a conviction would require proving it was untrue beyond reasonable doubt. As long as the male intern says something that implies he had a reasonable belief in consent, and there's no third party witnesses willing to testify to undermine his claims, the justice system is powerless. And rightly so. (If he was dumb enough to claim they hadn't had sex at all, and the rape kit proved otherwise, then he'd be in trouble, of course. The rape cases that the justice system can deal with are the ones that hinge on whether or not someone was in the room, or whether or not intercourse took place. Ie, the rare easy ones.)

> Do people believe that the standard of evidence for Police is too high but isn't politically possible to change?

Not at all. It's good that the justice system works by requiring crimes to be proven to a jury of one's peers beyond reasonable doubt, and that shouldn't change.

> If someone files a police complain but that complaint is dismissed for lack of evidence, how exactly should Microsoft evaluate that claim?

Microsoft should evaluate the claim at face value. What the police do is entirely separate. If one intern is convicted (and only then) Microsoft can decide if they want to hire a rapist. Until then, they can look at the fact that two of their interns have had an extremely unpleasant encounter. Deciding to hire both, and then assigning them to the same team is clearly the wrong solution, whatever did (or didn't) happen that night.