I'm not sure about how many rounds occurred, as I was rejected in the first round. I'm kind of glad that happened, considering how the interview went. The interviewer did not bother to use his camera, although I was expected to. This is an interview, not a reality show; that's basic etiquette.

I was given one question to solve, based on string manipulation. It wasn't hard, but I couldn't solve it completely. The worst part was that typically interviewers will give some hint or help you along the way. Here, the interviewer was not at all engaged while I wrote the code. Eventually, he went on to give me long lectures on how the internet works, how I should be curious about things, and basically how he is some wiz or a know-it-all.

I have the experience of being an interviewer on several occasions. The least I ensure is to make a positive impression on the candidate, no matter their performance. The point of an interview is to determine if you have something that can work for the company, not to display your technical prowess. Throwing some jargon doesn't make you some tech wizard; it's just annoying.

I have had the fortune to attend interviews with ICPC finalists. They are at least close to tech geeks or tech gods; you should see how absolutely humble and analytical they are. Anyway, the interview does give a glimpse into the company culture, and I would never want to work for such absolutely non-analytical know-it-alls.

1. String manipulation

2. How the internet works (this is where the God-awful lecture started)