4 ms·

I once worked at a place where one interview question was, "Imagine you were digging a hole x by y by z and it look q minutes. How much dirt was in the hole at

I once worked at a place where one interview question was, "Imagine you were digging a hole x by y by z and it look q minutes. How much dirt was in the hole at time r"? I instantly answered, "There's no dirt in the hole, because a hole is defined by there not being any dirt". They were like, "Wow, that was fast. Most people we interview take five to ten minutes to come to that conclusion". Me: "I have a really bad feeling about this". Unfortunately, I was right. I don't think the people there were bad people or dumb people (both are subjective value judgments, and that just seems passé now), but it was a really bad fit for me because I couldn't relate to anybody, even professionally. It sucks because if I was able to relate to more people at that time, I would have had more options I would have been happy with, and choice is wealth. Instead, I had to burn cycles outside of work on professional development in order to feel like I'm not trapped, which inevitably causes burnout. It's a horrible feeling. I wish I was more ignorant and felt less pain about these esoteric, really meaningless matters. But I can't. And I'm nowhere close to being a genius, so they have it worse than I do.

Syzygies 7y ago
This reminds me of how Piaget's theories of childhood development were discredited. The researchers would spread out three pencils, and ask the kid if there were now more pencils. The kid knew there weren't, but generously tried to understand what the adult might want? Perhaps there's a new meaning to the word here? And also a recent Facebook puzzle, apparently outside the problem statement were instructions to return answers by Facebook Messenger, then the puzzle question was "to respond, what do you open first?" Trick question, except a bogus answer as my Facebook Messenger was already open. As a research mathematician, one comes across as a complete jerk if one is too literal about a question one is actually smart enough to reformulate properly. We give others the benefit of the doubt all the time, math or life. Here, the only sensible interpretation is the volume of dirt remaining in what will soon become hole. If they seriously meant "no the hole is empty" then yes cut the interview short, and run don't walk out of there.
milesvp 7y ago
This interview question sounds disingenuous, if this was the only correct answer. It’s sort of a poorly worded question, and I’d only ask it if I wanted to see how the interviewer poked holes in it. Even then I’d be sort of an asshole for it. But the main reason it’s disingenuous is the same reason HN has the rule to always be generous with your interpretation of comments. Words are ambiguous, and people take lots of shortcuts to save time at the expense of precision. ‘Hole’ in the context of this question can very reasonably be generously be interpreted as ‘the space where the final hole will be at time q’. It sounds like a ‘gotcha question’, and these have no place in an interview. Meanwhile, keep your head up. You can sort of learn to turn down the literal interpretation impulses of your brain, if that’s something causing you pain. It’s something I’ve gotten better at over the last 30 years (though its still really hard when I’m tired or stressed). It makes casual encounters easier, and more enjoyable when I do.

Syzygies 7y ago

This reminds me of how Piaget's theories of childhood development were discredited. The researchers would spread out three pencils, and ask the kid if there were now more pencils. The kid knew there weren't, but generously tried to understand what the adult might want? Perhaps there's a new meaning to the word here? And also a recent Facebook puzzle, apparently outside the problem statement were instructions to return answers by Facebook Messenger, then the puzzle question was "to respond, what do you open first?" Trick question, except a bogus answer as my Facebook Messenger was already open. As a research mathematician, one comes across as a complete jerk if one is too literal about a question one is actually smart enough to reformulate properly. We give others the benefit of the doubt all the time, math or life. Here, the only sensible interpretation is the volume of dirt remaining in what will soon become hole. If they seriously meant "no the hole is empty" then yes cut the interview short, and run don't walk out of there.

milesvp 7y ago

This interview question sounds disingenuous, if this was the only correct answer. It’s sort of a poorly worded question, and I’d only ask it if I wanted to see how the interviewer poked holes in it. Even then I’d be sort of an asshole for it. But the main reason it’s disingenuous is the same reason HN has the rule to always be generous with your interpretation of comments. Words are ambiguous, and people take lots of shortcuts to save time at the expense of precision. ‘Hole’ in the context of this question can very reasonably be generously be interpreted as ‘the space where the final hole will be at time q’. It sounds like a ‘gotcha question’, and these have no place in an interview. Meanwhile, keep your head up. You can sort of learn to turn down the literal interpretation impulses of your brain, if that’s something causing you pain. It’s something I’ve gotten better at over the last 30 years (though its still really hard when I’m tired or stressed). It makes casual encounters easier, and more enjoyable when I do.