Just adding on the post. I used to work for big tech companies, I interviewed for some and also I had the pleasure of interviewing candidates. I mostly interviewed for security related roles but at some stage, I had constantly positive feedback from the candidate so I was thrown in to interview candidates for other roles as well.

I agree with the article, and had my fair share of bad apples so my thoughts here.
Unless the role was something that required dealing with incidents, there was no point on doing a technical interview onsite and seeing how the candidate reacts under stress. Generally, noone cares how well a candidate performs under stress. Instead, I'd let them deal with technical problems on their own time, if they wanted and tell them to spend no more than 2 days (I'd actually kill the instance to ensure that). For security positions, I ended up building a CTF platform and told them to solve as many challenges as they wish and send back a report.

For the onsite interviews, we did mostly cultural interviews.
There was a bit of technical questions involved, mostly open-ended questions to see how they approached a problem. This usually was to design some system or, given a tiny codebase, how they'd go implementing a feature.
Also, I did what we ended up naming "spirals". Successive questions, increasing in difficulty to see how much in depth they went during their research. E.g. Traceroute -> Ping -> ICMP -> Differences in Linux vs Windows. This had two benefits. It was clear how much in depth they would go and two, it was almost guaranteed that at some point they wouldn't know the answer, which is fine, but forces them to explain how they would go to find the answer.
Almost always, I'd tell them whether they were on the right path and if they were stuck kinda help them.
I'd give about 5-10 minutes for the candidate to ask me anything. Literally, anything. For me, this was important because I would get a sense for how candidates evaluated the company and what they were interested in.

Beyond that, at some stage, we added some questions called internally the "I read it on the internet". The questions were pretty straightforward, e.g. given a terminal, tell me how would you ssh in this box as XYZ user or how would you rm a directory. Fun fact. I initially made fun of the operations guys asking those questions until I interviewed a series of people where noone knew how to do simple stuff with their terminals.
Btw, I didn't focus at all on technologies. Given the size of the company, asking "How much you know about $LANGUAGE" would be futile. I wanted to hire people who could pick up new technologies and, given the size of the company most of the tools were custom-built or heavily modified. It was pointless asking "$LANGUAGE" and then telling them "Well, great, just keep in mind we don't actually use exactly $LANGUAGE but rather our own version of it".
Last, and probably the most important. I asked myself how I wanted to be treated during an interview. I kept in mind that I generally wanted to be treated with dignity and respect, I kept in mind that the resume is basically a snapshot of someone's life and the candidate is a human being and acted accordingly. Also, I valued for candidates who asked for feedback and actually I'd give them some and tell them stuff to read reg. things I felt they could do better. Btw, I also assumed that each candidate would get an offer and I didn't want them coming in and thinking "That's the idiot that was acting cocky during the interview".