3 ms·

If I smell any bs then I immediately change tactics and make sure I put them deep over their head. For example, "what are the strengths and weaknesses of classi

If I smell any bs then I immediately change tactics and make sure I put them deep over their head. For example, "what are the strengths and weaknesses of classifying grammars via the Chomsky hierarchy?" There's 3 ways to answer these kinds of questions and it exposes you as either a genius (or in this case a linguist), a non-genius (real geniuses are as common as 7.5 ft tall people) or a bullshitter trying to look like a genius.* I've never met an actual genius in an interview so let me address the other two. That third group is a nonstarter. I've known the person for 10 minutes and they're already trying to deceive me. How the hell am I going to build a product with them? Kim Scott, some SV big wig wrote an entire book on this called Radical Candor. Essentially it's "don't bullshit people (and know where your taking the relationship when you use that rule)" I strongly believe companies work best with the smallest bullshit quotient possible. They may sell more or be more profitable with certain flavors of bullshit, but things are easier and more stuff gets done without it. At the end I would have rather actually made something than duped people with sham products sold on dreams --- * I actually can't answer that question but I could probably identify the neighborhood of a real answer (...something something limitations of the von nuemann model restricting the constructions of parsing systems something something...). The point isn't to answer it, although that would be quite impressive; it's to see how far someone digs into their own BS.

westoncb 8y ago
I'm curious about the question here if anyone wants to chime in (this is just an area in CS that I'm interested in but don't have exhaustive knowledge of or anything). > what are the strengths and weaknesses of classifying grammars via the Chomsky hierarchy? Are there alternative classification schemes for grammars? I haven't come across any personally—not for formal languages anyway. Or was something else meant by the question?
mjcohen 8y ago
For Chomsky, I would hazard finite state automata, BNF systems, and Turing machines. I might then mumble about number of tapes and time to recognize, and then stop.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- JustSomeNobody 8y ago
  Type 0, Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 (aka: Type K grammars). Type 0 is an unrestricted grammar. Type 1 is a context sensitive grammar. Type 2 is a context free grammar. Type 3 is a regular grammar. For our (CS) purposes we typically use Type 2 and 3.
drugme 8y ago
For example, "what are the strengths and weaknesses of classifying grammars via the Chomsky hierarchy?" What's the point of grandstanding like this? To make yourself feel smarter than they are? My way of dealing with bullshitters (who in general are surprisingly eager to reveal themselves as such -- there's no need to lay special traps for them) is simply to say "Hmm - okay" and politely end the interview at the nearest reasonable opportunity.
- kristopolous 8y ago
  It's a 1-on-1 interview (not in front of others). Ultimately the point is to help the person. When interviewing and I didn't get a job I always desperately wanted to know how to improve things next time and nobody would tell me. Instead there was this little canned BS email from HR "after much consideration blah blah blah" stop that ... tell why! This goes one step beyond telling. Show people why. Show them what they are doing, when they are doing it, how you can see it, why it's bad, why it hurts them and help them not do it in the future. Give them an offer to correct it after you've made it clear (this is like throwing an exception in programming versus silent failure). Reset the clock and try again if you want. Maybe they're actually great and you read them wrong (they might be a "good program" with your bad input). The interviewer isn't some flawless executioner. Most interviewers don't act like characters out of an Ayn Rand book. At the end of the day they care about others and know they have bills to pay. Doing this shows "this is why this job can't happen". Try to be their best interview for a job they didn't get. The candidate doesn't walk out the door with ambiguity or false pretense or the illusion of doing well. Nor do the decisions come across as arbitrary and indiscriminate. They know exactly what action they need to take for their next opportunity. If they don't get the job on offer, the best you can do for them is help make sure they can get the next one.
  - drugme 8y ago
    Fair enough - thanks for clarifying.

westoncb 8y ago

I'm curious about the question here if anyone wants to chime in (this is just an area in CS that I'm interested in but don't have exhaustive knowledge of or anything). > what are the strengths and weaknesses of classifying grammars via the Chomsky hierarchy? Are there alternative classification schemes for grammars? I haven't come across any personally—not for formal languages anyway. Or was something else meant by the question?

mjcohen 8y ago

For Chomsky, I would hazard finite state automata, BNF systems, and Turing machines. I might then mumble about number of tapes and time to recognize, and then stop.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
JustSomeNobody 8y ago
Type 0, Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 (aka: Type K grammars). Type 0 is an unrestricted grammar. Type 1 is a context sensitive grammar. Type 2 is a context free grammar. Type 3 is a regular grammar. For our (CS) purposes we typically use Type 2 and 3.

drugme 8y ago

For example, "what are the strengths and weaknesses of classifying grammars via the Chomsky hierarchy?" What's the point of grandstanding like this? To make yourself feel smarter than they are? My way of dealing with bullshitters (who in general are surprisingly eager to reveal themselves as such -- there's no need to lay special traps for them) is simply to say "Hmm - okay" and politely end the interview at the nearest reasonable opportunity.

kristopolous 8y ago
It's a 1-on-1 interview (not in front of others). Ultimately the point is to help the person. When interviewing and I didn't get a job I always desperately wanted to know how to improve things next time and nobody would tell me. Instead there was this little canned BS email from HR "after much consideration blah blah blah" stop that ... tell why! This goes one step beyond telling. Show people why. Show them what they are doing, when they are doing it, how you can see it, why it's bad, why it hurts them and help them not do it in the future. Give them an offer to correct it after you've made it clear (this is like throwing an exception in programming versus silent failure). Reset the clock and try again if you want. Maybe they're actually great and you read them wrong (they might be a "good program" with your bad input). The interviewer isn't some flawless executioner. Most interviewers don't act like characters out of an Ayn Rand book. At the end of the day they care about others and know they have bills to pay. Doing this shows "this is why this job can't happen". Try to be their best interview for a job they didn't get. The candidate doesn't walk out the door with ambiguity or false pretense or the illusion of doing well. Nor do the decisions come across as arbitrary and indiscriminate. They know exactly what action they need to take for their next opportunity. If they don't get the job on offer, the best you can do for them is help make sure they can get the next one.
- drugme 8y ago
  Fair enough - thanks for clarifying.