The first interview was a pleasant introductory conversation where I had the chance to share my background and past experience. It was a nice start, and I appreciated the friendly tone and openness.

The second interview was a coding challenge focused on notifications — specifically, preventing duplicate notifications from being sent to subscribers. I successfully implemented the working (naive) solution, but didn’t have enough time to move on to the optimal one since the interview began with a longer introductory chat. The goal was to get the main logic working, which I did.

Unfortunately, I didn’t pass the process. The feedback mentioned I misinterpreted the complexity, which isn’t accurate — my approach was correct but used O(n) instead of the more optimal O(u/t). When asked about the optimal solution, I explained it correctly.

It was disappointing that despite solving the question, the process didn’t explore any other aspect of my abilities — not my previous projects, the complex features I’ve built, or the architectural decisions I’ve made. For a senior-level position, I expected the interview to dig deeper into problem-solving, system design, and real-world experience. Overall, it felt like an unbalanced process that didn’t provide a fair reflection of my skills or potential. Very disappointed.

Send notifications to subscribers without duplicates.