If anything I expect people higher up in the hierarchy to be less sensitive about being interrupted, and more on board with optimizing information flow. On the other hand, with people who are more junior/less confident you are more at risk of discouraging them from sharing useful information if you interrupt too often, so it can be counterproductive.
One thing that I find tends to help is interrupting with questions rather than statements as that sort of keeps the ball in the other person’s court.
You basically accused awillen of being that type of engineer, even though awillen wrote against being that type of interruptive arsehole. awillen is asking “how do we convert people to church of interruption”, they are not saying to interrupt.
Your reply to my comment is tangential, without connecting to the point I made (perhaps because my own comment was rude: I do reread the https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html regularly and I try to follow them . . .).
I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to treat senior leaders differently from peers.
More on topic, if we're talking about a business context here, and I think we are, it's important to consider the actual implications. If the team that is willing to shove and be shoved is more effective than the other team, it seems reasonable to expect those who join the team to get their shoving gloves on, fast, if they want to contribute at a high level.
Lots of assumptions baked in there, and I'm not saying it's the only valid way to run a good business, by any stretch.
The self proclaimed interrupters become surprisingly polite when speaking to the CEO. What an interesting phenomenon ;)