Interview process was pretty straightforward Phone Screen -> Code Screen -> Onsite (Virtual) One of the onsite sessions involved writing a psuedo-API for a construct they use often in their applications (Don't want to give it away). The interviewer for that session seemed to be engaged for the first 15 - 20 minutes of that portion, and then had his mic on mute looking at his other monitor for the rest of the session.. At the end he said the code I wrote (which was rough around the edges, IMO) was OK and to not worry about the details, even though we had 10-15 minutes left. The rest of the interview was just technical/system level design questions, which I thought I did ok on (?) Most interviewers were pleasant; hiring manager was a little short and spoke very quickly, but seemed very intelligent. Recruiter syncs at the end instead of ghosting in a quick turnaround, which was very appreciated. Offered feedback, but the feedback given was more along the lines of "Well you probably know what you failed on.. (Not the recruiter's fault, he goes off of info the team gives him)". Disclaimer: I didn't have much experience with caching/content delivery professionally before applying for the job.

Submitted resume through the careers page -> phone call with the engineering manager who asked high-level tech questions -> phone call with recruiter to explain the next steps -> technical interview via hackerrank