The big companies in Silicon Valley generally use a similar interview style, which is well-known. Google even provides detailed information about it. The rest, however, is largely up to you. My interview seemed to go well overall, but a couple of specific things made it a somewhat negative experience.

The interview consisted of five 45-minute sessions, with lunch in the middle. All were technical interviews with engineers; there were no cultural fit interviews.

Some sessions were typical whiteboard exercises, and most of the questions seemed relevant. However, one session focused on a problem that felt more like a brainteaser than an indicator of actual real-world performance. Don't be caught off guard. Ensure you not only understand the major review topics but can also implement them instinctively, regardless of how academic they might seem.

The other sessions were design/architecture discussions, which I really enjoyed. Though, I felt a bit blindsided in one of them. This interview began with a description of a feature, and I was asked how I might implement it in general terms. As the conversation progressed, we delved into whiteboarding the data model and discussed performance. So far, so good, I thought. But just five or ten minutes before the end, the interviewer stated she needed to see some code before our time was up. Code?! Needed?! Based on how the interviewer had guided the conversation until then, I had no idea this was an expectation. In other architecture sessions I participated in that day, coding wasn't a concern at all. So, it might be worth confirming early what an interviewer expects by the end.

On a side note, I also felt there was a bit of a language barrier between me and two of the interviewers. Don't be caught off guard if your interviewer speaks English poorly.

I can't say. Candidates sign a confidentiality agreement prior to interviewing.