> The main issue that I see is that interviewers get extra picky with all the minor details and they fail candidates due to minor issues that would get solved in a code review or just with a bit more time
You see a "minor issue that would get solved in a code review".
I see a production outage.
You cannot rely on others catching and fixing your bugs. It happens, but it's all about probabilities. You want to reduce the probability that something bad will happen. That means not just relying on more senior people to catch problems in your code, it also means relying on you to be careful.
No, I see people complaining about a test not looking like what they expect, or minor nitpicks like variable names or not using the interviewer's favourite design pattern
Of course the same people who nitpick are the ones writing O(n^2) code and actually causing a major bug
Ok, I was thinking about something else than stylistic preferences, e.g. making an off-by-one error in an implementation of an algorithm during live coding. Something that indeed would be usually catched by a careful code review, but candidates sometimes undermine importance errors.
You see a "minor issue that would get solved in a code review".
I see a production outage.
You cannot rely on others catching and fixing your bugs. It happens, but it's all about probabilities. You want to reduce the probability that something bad will happen. That means not just relying on more senior people to catch problems in your code, it also means relying on you to be careful.