Always this "if you have any complaints about Scrum then you aren't doing it correctly" with no explanation how you'd fix the problems I talked about.

Also the leetcode interview is cargo-culted from big tech companies like Google and Scrum is cargo-culted from big tech consultants. They don't fit well together, having both means your company just picked the most popular/simple way to do each part without considering why Google uses that interview or tech consultants uses Scrum. If you want your engineers to work on problems similar to at Google then you wouldn't use Scrum, and if you want your engineers to work on similar problems as big tech consultants then you wouldn't use the leetcode interview.

Yes, nobody else could write tickets that reliably takes less than a day other than the team. The problem is that your day to day structure gets decided by a brainstorming session held every other week, that might make sense in some contexts but mandating that every developer has to work that way is exactly what I mean that you aren't allowed to have any responsibility.

To me it seems like Scrum was designed to make developers have as little individual ownership/responsibility as possible while still being able to produce relevant code. I see the merit in that, you don't have to tell me why minimizing individual ownership/responsibility could be a good thing. But I strongly believe that individual ownership is necessary to properly capitalize on the creativity of individual talent, otherwise its mostly wasted.