Sad to say that I totally agree with the other review written here. The process start randomly after you apply, when you receive an email asking to complete a take-home project in a week time after you get it (no asking of your availability nor allowing you to discuss the role/fit beforehand). Once you send back your take-home, they may or may not offer you a technical interview, during which the work you have done will NOT be discussed. Also good to know before you apply: the take-home exercise instructions they send you explicitly say that part of your work may end up in their production code; at least they are not hiding this could be volunteer work. Now to the interview: interviewer was very late, focused on minutia, asked a bunch of flashcard questions where the speed of your answer is more important than its actual content. Overall, felt like a management consulting/banking interview. They refused to discuss compensation, saying it is based on "interview performance". I got a rebuttal email a couple days after the interview, which was basically grading my skills one by one; this felt a bit weird and patronizing, especially since I thought I was taking a job interview, and not going through a roasting standup comedy show nor visiting a shrink for an evaluation. Bonus sample: interviewer seemed 100% sure L2 norm was much better than Euclidean; did not seem to know they both use the same formula. Overall: I feel a bit stupid to have taken the take-home exercise to begin with, since many red flags were raised already. This company wants to play in the major league, but ends up merely being patronizing.

Two interviews with the CTO, and a take-home project. The project was out of scope, took about a week, and then he focused on a bunch of minutia, including a few super irrelevant technical questions.