In the first part of the interview they asked questions on programming, computer vision and signal processing. The second part was live coding. They asked a simple leetcode like question which I needed to implement in C++. The questions were fair. In the programming part they expected the answer in proper code. They did not care much about pseudocode or outline of implementation. The interview process was fair and the interview was competent. The only problem was that his interaction and communication was poor, which was confusing.

I was reached out to by a recruiter for a CVE position. We did a quick and polite screening. The recruiter was pleasant, and explained to me there were 2 rounds: a 1st round, 60 minute technical, and a 2nd round onsite 4 hour interview. They provided a small prep document which said that the interview would be a leetcode medium problem and heavily advised practicing leetcode to prepare. I was then given a interview on a bug hunting problem using hackerrank codepair. After completing it I was not selected for the next round. I'm unsure what to consider for the difficulty of this interview because I'm not certain if the bug hunting problem was hard per se, I think I just wasn't able to find any prep material on how they wanted me to answer it cleanly. As a result I simply flailed through the document trying to note up and change things, unsure of what they wanted to see, how I would be graded or what to improve. You can't very easily feel your way through a coding challenge in 15-20 minutes problem and impress an interviewer. Even if you solve it, they want you to have solved it in an organized professional way that implies you've practiced that kind of problem with a rubric. Others might know this problem in a way I wasn't able to prep for. Scanning through and finding gotcha's is certainly tricky for me, but others might not have found it hard, I'm not sure. So I'll leave it as Average.