Domande di colloquio presso Lab49

First round was successful, mostly technical questions. Recruiter was very optimistic, said that I was exceptionally good. Then I made the mistake that I took the next round easy. It was not. Well, it would not be that hard either, had I known the coding example beforehand. :D In about 30 mins I had to change existing code to run as parallel as it can. I had to config thread numbers, and then merge results of spawned calc threads. I didn't manage to get it right, becuase I was tired, stressed, and am not used to this kind of parallel coding. I was instructed to use Google freely but not AI. Well, Google already gives you AI summary first, so not sure where's the difference nowadays. They said I was a complete disappointment, and they need much higher competences for this job. On the next day, I spent an hour implementing the task in 3-4 different ways using java.concurrent classes for myself. It was fun, and I did learn from it. I don't think I was a bad candidate, I just need calm focus time to solve problems. If they can't provide it, then maybe I am better off without the job. (Or I need to practice this kind of interview tasks more..)

First Round: regular HR round talking about the company, and relevant previous experiences Second Round: 90 minutes live coding. Allowed to read docs or ask questions, but can't use AI or google the solution. Difficulty is a bit hard to judge, because the problems were the type where knowledge of specific patterns is required, and that determines whether it's hard or trivial. Style of coding and a compact and "elegant" solution were emphasized over relevant skills, or thought process. There was no followup or any feedback after the second round.