The first interview was a screening interview, and we discussed my experience and some of the projects in my portfolio. The interviewer asked sharp questions and answered my questions well. This was a good interview. The next interview was a technical interview, and involved solving a brain-teaser algorithm question. If you don't know what Reverse Polish Notation is, look it up! I have a tendency to freeze up during these types of interviews, and I didn't perform well here. The interviewer was understanding, though, which was good. Where I think things went south, and what irritated me as an applicant, was the coding takehome I was offered. At first glance, it seems like a simple assignment to fetch data from the SpaceX API and display the data using React. What's odd is that the code you're given is outdated and intentionally badly-written. The repo says: "... the code is intentionally a little dirty around the edges in the hopes you will show us how you would clean it up..." I had a difficult time even getting the dependencies to finish installing so I could run the code, which was a red flag. I find this strategy of evaluating candidates bizarre. Isn't the purpose of a takehome to test how candidates would solve a problem similar to those solved at the company? Why, then, would a company have candidates work on a code base that's badly written? Does that mean they'll be working on badly-written code if they get the job? It sends a bad message, and I found this aspect of the interview aggravating and a waste of time.

Started with an initial interview covering typical behavioral interview questions. At the end of this interview, I was told the next round would be a 1-1.5 hour technical interview including a discussion about my past work and live-coding technical questions. I was told after that the third round entailed being given access to their code base and live-coding a new feature. Unfortunately, this was not the case, and my second interview was just another conversation with a senior engineer that included some technical questions about my experience rather than a full technical interview. The difference between what I was told would be the interview process and what actually occurred was never acknowledged by them. Also at this second interview, I was told different information about what the total interview process entailed including that they have candidates complete a take-home exercise rather than having them attend a technical interview. I was told a lot of information in response to my own questions that seemed off and in my experience would probably not be disclosed by other companies to candidates during interviews. Overall, in my opinion, they seemed disorganized and unprepared. I asked questions about what training and onboarding for this position would be like and how they determine competitive salary when they are a remote company and individuals living in different areas are applying. I was essentially told in response to these questions that this is a brand new position, I would be the first person ever hired for this role, they have not come up with any plan for onboarding or training, and they haven't set a salary range for the position.