Recruiter reached out to me. I'm happy at my current job, but it sounded like a good opportunity, so I would give it a go. Had a phone screen, which involved a difficult coding challenge on coderpad.io. Required a full solution + test cases. Later got the good news that I did well on the phone screen and the team wanted to proceed to the onsite. The campus in SF is quite nice, bright, open space, themed rooms. You're thinking "wow...is this place amazong...look actual beer/wine/kombucha on tap and fancy food treats everywhere." Then the interviews started. 2 coding, 2 cross functional, 1 experience, 1 architecture. The coding problems are pretty typical stuff. Review graphs, DP, and standard algorithm approaches. Not telling you question, because I signed a NDA ,and it wouldn't help you anyways as they'll just have a different question of the week when you get your shot. You bring in your own laptop and code the solution in your own IDE, so that's different. Personally, I felt like it gave me an advantage and wish everyone else would do this as well. Coding problems were medium level, and I didn't have issues completing them. Cross functional interviews were like standard behavioral questions, but you get a feeling that they're seeing if you really belong in their fraternity/cult, because the questions were just weird (i.e. what problem would you solve in the world today, what does it mean to you to belong anywhere). Whatever...they're looking for real koolaid drinkers. Architecture will be some high level design that is as clear as mud and to test how you break it down and clarify questions. Experience interview is where they basically have you talk about in technical details on a white board about how you solved a challenging problem in the past. I had a nagging suspicion that this is basically a brain rape session for them to get ideas from you on how to fix their own problems. So I would urge you that the NDA goes both ways at this point. Don't go giving away clever strategic advantages here. Personally, I think this loop is very bogus and shouldn't be done. Ask me high level details and what I learned and what I could have changed, but deep drill-down into solutions here made me question if I really should be telling them about how much I kicked butt in a previous project. Especially when the interviewer says afterwards "very interesting...we're looking at a similar problem on my team." I got an answer 2 days later that I had strong "signals" across most interviews except for one. The one they mentioned surprised me as it was probably what I would call my better loop. Don't expect to get any kind of useful feedback. In the end, you're just left scratching your head, thinking "just what are they looking for, exactly?" I don't think I'll consider re-applying. Weird experience.