Work is piled in a way that you can flexibly decide when to work 16 hours per day.
The ranking system seems to be gone, but the internal culture and people still enforce it. In the review system, there is a "checkbox" equivalent to a rank of Underperforming.
You can do your job perfectly (no errors) and on time and still be pushed to an Underperforming status compared to your peers.
If you care a lot about your work's result, this company may or may not be a good fit for you; it all depends on how many tasks you can perform at the same time.
Keep up the good work; the stock is not low enough. Otherwise, you could save money, time, and face by avoiding rework on bugs caused by exhausted employees. And if you care, it would be nice to do away with “prima donna” useless projects that only help pump up some bonuses and are discarded later in favor of similar projects in an endless cycle.
First contact was at a university campus recruiting event. I was called for a short 1:1 interview (30 minutes), followed by another short screening interview (phone). Then, I was called for an on-site interview in Redmond. I had four interviews, ea
College hire: One interview in college, followed by five rounds of interviews onsite.
They asked me a tough maths combination problem and wanted to code it on the blackboard without using `for` or any other loop.
First contact was at a university campus recruiting event. I was called for a short 1:1 interview (30 minutes), followed by another short screening interview (phone). Then, I was called for an on-site interview in Redmond. I had four interviews, ea
College hire: One interview in college, followed by five rounds of interviews onsite.
They asked me a tough maths combination problem and wanted to code it on the blackboard without using `for` or any other loop.