I applied online through their website and heard back from a recruiter to schedule a phone screen around a week later. There were three rounds: the HR phone screen, OA, and the VO.

The phone screen was relaxed. I just chatted with the recruiter, who answered some questions about the company, role, and interview process. Compared to other companies, I felt they were really transparent and good about responding to follow-up emails during the process.

The OA is the only reason I took issue with this interview. Like others have mentioned, it feels like an IQ test in some ways, and I wasn't a fan of the proctoring software. The coding portion of the OA wasn't difficult: four questions around medium difficulty, but they don't provide an IDE/running environment (and you can't run them outside the test window). I think there is more emphasis on writing clear code and explaining your thought process; language semantics don't really matter. At some points, I was writing near pseudo-code and got through this round.

The VO was split into two portions. The first was an information session with a few engineers and a small pool of applicants. They explained more about the company, opportunities, workplace culture, etc. There was time for QA with the engineers in the small groups. Everyone was friendly and seemed to care about answering questions/giving out their contact information if we had further questions.

The second half was a 1-1 with an engineer and a recruiter. The former was a relaxed system design (don't feel forced to get through the whole thing, just explain your thought process as you go). It was mostly led by my interviewer asking about specific scenarios/problems we might face, so it felt like more of a conversation (I think others here have had the same sentiment). The recruiter call at the end was again just a time to chat and ask questions/talk more about the role.

Once you are past the OA, I think they focus on culture fit/behavioral aspects for the onsite.

The OA had some abstract sections, including some math, problem-solving, and a novel programming language for you to answer questions about. I felt this was the worst part of the interview; many of the semantics were vague/ambiguous in some ways, and the answers were multiple-choice, so there wasn't anywhere for you to explain your thinking. The coding questions were more standard Leetcode, around medium difficulty. I recall a couple being standard array/string/graph problems, and there was one question which used more of a math-y approach.