The process was fairly holistic and similar to the standard for the industry. Started with a phone screen that was about half behavioral/introduction and half frontend/coding technical. After that came the onsite slate, with questions ranging from practical front-end implementation, behavioral and cultural interviews, coding, data structures & algorithms, and a little bit of backend and systems-design oriented discussion in there as well. After that you have opportunities to talk to SWEs, tech managers, Peter the CTO, and even Qasar the CEO. Alexandra, my recruiter, was also readily available to provide information about the company, discuss offer details, or schedule more talks if needed. I found this portion of the process incredibly beneficial in my decision making, and everyone I talked to seemed to be both fairly brilliant and very invested in the company's success. I really appreciated that they went out of their way to make sure the fit was right.

The process was pretty typical: a phone call with a recruiter, followed by a technical phone screen, then an onsite interview. The onsite is unique in that you meet with the entire panel up front and everyone does introductions together, so you don't have to repeat that with each individual session. Each session is then shorter: they're 45 minutes instead of 1 hour, all technical. I appreciated this optimization of the onsite process. If you pass this step, then you chat with a hiring manager separately. The recruiter will send you useful info on how to prep for the interview, and what they generally look for. They value speed and completeness over perfection, so "finished" solutions are valued highly. The phone screen went well, and the recruiter was able to schedule an onsite quickly. The onsite consisted of four separate technical sessions. Each question was challenging, but not that difficult. I thought I did pretty well, but apparently not well enough, since I did not end up getting an offer. In the feedback the recruiter sent, they mentioned things like "small but critical errors," and needing a few too many hints. So this does not seem to be a culture where they value collaborative problem solving, and being able to recognize and fix your own bugs - they want you to not make any errors to begin with. I asked each interviewer about various aspects of the company, and work/life balance was not a strength. The recruiter mentioned that you're expected to have about 50 hours of work per week, and another interviewer said you can expect to work one weekend per month. They did note that these hours are not mandatory or enforced, but your performance and career development will suffer if you're unable to meet them. Given this aspect, even if I had received an offer, I'm not sure I would have accepted it.