A recruiter reached out to me on LinkedIn.

I completed a series of online interviews: three for coding and one for system engineering.

The first coding interview went well. However, the next two were a mixed bag, resulting in a 'soft no' and a 'soft yes'. The system engineering interview also yielded a 'soft no'.

In the system engineering interview, they noted I wasn't initially clear enough in explaining the architecture. I recall my explanation vividly and firmly believe I performed well, even if not perfectly. The interviewer's subjective feedback was a 'soft no', though he did acknowledge my understanding of consistency and reliability.

At one point, the interviewer asked if we could remove the RabbitMQ component to simplify the system. I couldn't provide a definitive answer immediately but suggested it was theoretically possible. The interviewer seemed okay with my response. At the end, he wished me luck with my other interviews.

From the feedback, it appears he disliked that I couldn't give a definitive answer. In retrospect, removing RabbitMQ wouldn't have been a good idea, as it would likely need to be replaced by an infinite loop querying the database every one to two seconds. Additionally, RabbitMQ provides abstraction value for managing multiple queues per database.

My estimation is that to achieve a 'soft yes,' one is expected to be perfect, perform at their absolute best, and remain focused. To get a 'yes,' one is expected to discuss advanced systems, such as those found in whitepapers, potentially even managing system kernels for optimized throughput/performance.

The technical coding questions in the second and third interviews focused on everyday problems rather than typical LeetCode-style challenges.

In the second coding interview, I started poorly but managed to pivot and find a solution that covered edge cases. Despite this, it resulted in a 'soft no'. The interviewer's feedback mentioned that he had to add assert statements to demonstrate edge cases.

I admit I wasn't at my best that day, and my solution lacked creativity. However, even though I adapted and provided a working solution, it was still a 'soft no'.

After each interview, I was asked to rate it on a scale of 0 to 10, which felt peculiar to do before receiving their feedback.

The recruiter was professional and provided clear feedback. Since I received 'soft no's' rather than outright rejections, I was told I could reapply in six months. It felt as though they were searching for the perfect candidate. As I was also working on the days of the interviews, I wasn't at my absolute best.

Right after each interview, they asked me to rate it from 0 to 10. This was quite strange, doing so before getting their feedback.

The recruiter was decent and explained the feedback well. They mentioned I could reapply in six months since I received 'soft no's,' not outright rejections, suggesting they believe I have potential. The entire process was a bit of a rollercoaster, with some positive aspects and some confusing ones. It felt like they were hunting for an exceptionally perfect candidate.

Related to bytes buffering in file writing.