The process was standard. initial phone screening, phone call with an engineer, & online 1-1 coding challenge. Didn't get to the on site. It is what it is with these questions, you've either done them before or you haven't. Solving algorithm question is usually not too hard, but finding the optimal solution that's where you need to have done it or a similar problem before. Anyways that's not their fault alone, it's just the tech hiring process in general. The one thing that made me doubt joining them was their product model, which is that they test people's aptitude for a certain position based on neuroscience. People will play games that will rate their personality. The problem with this is that scientific theories could potentially be proven wrong. It's happened before. You can even argue that you can find studies done to many opposing claims. This being the case, you have to be wary of case studies, and always be on the lookout for any new findings. So I asked 'what do you guys do, when you receive feedback about a game or it needs to be changed for any reason'. Didn't ask the question directly, but new findings would fall under this category His response. 'they don't need to be changed. They're based on science'. That's scary considering that you're putting people's careers at play with this technology. You have to be open to change if your 'findings' are ever proven wrong.

Talked to the team head first, and that went well. Then had a 30-40 minute code test. Unlike most of my contemporaries, I have not practiced doing these on my own so I did poorly.