I too worked at Google (as a senior programmer) and interviewed candidates for several years, and I agree with the author that the most important thing is how an applicant can communicate their coding. However, I agree strongly with the comments that Google is doing a rather bad job of interviewing people.

Google's thing of watching people code on a whiteboard is nuts. Expecting people to figure out a good way to reverse a linked list is even crazier. Nobody codes on a whiteboard, you code on a computer. Nobody needs to figure out a good algorithm to reverse a linked list. We have tools (including Google search) to show us the best way to do it, which is often just grabbing some online code and using it. The more important question is what kind of data structure they should use, not how to build that data structure and its algorithms from scratch. After all, if you have a list of elements, but it is reasonable to store it in an array, then reversing it is trivial (and yes, I've seen software that I was able to simplify and speed up by doing exactly that!)

Before Google, I started several computer companies, and the way we would interview people is to have them bring in some code they had written, and a group would sit down with them and have a code review. Asking questions about their code, and having them explain what they did AND WHY was the best way to measure if they would be a good hire. Ironically, years later I found out that this is also how Y-combinator does programmer interviews too (great minds think alike!).

So eventually I started doing that in interviews at Google, and Google told me to stop. And I stopped doing interviews for them.

Luckily for me, when Google recruited me, I was very good at programming on a whiteboard, because I had also taught programming at the graduate school level, and that's what you did. Google loved me, but for the wrong reasons. Well, at least the pay was good!

I noticed the comments about Flutter, too. I worked on that, and will probably comment there.