14 ms·
If Richard Feynman applied for a job at Microsoft (2002)
- danbrooks 5y agoWhat an amazing ending! :)
- ThePadawan 5y agoI don't think I get the punchline. Could someone explain?
- cacois 5y agoYou were supposed to expect them to fail his interview because he didn't give the "right" answer (manhole covers are round so they can't fall in the hole). Instead, he completely disagreed with the "right" answer, but did so in a way that was incredibly convincing. So, they decided his primary value was not in his intellect (leading him to a job in engineering), but in his ability to convince people of things (leading him to a job in marketing).
- ThePadawan 5y agoI did follow the "intended" vs. "right" subtext right until the punchline. I also at no point got the impression that this fictional Feynman was very convincing, charming or anything like that. Just a bit of a talky wise-ass, really. Obviously he knows his stuff, but he's not direct enough to just say that outright, he tries to lord his intellect over the interviewer. So I really wasn't sure what the punchline ("let's hire you in marketing") was all about. Is the interviewer saying this guy is a bad engineer since he doesn't get to the point? That he's a good marketer because he can talk lots and lots of bullshit? Is the implication that being offered a position in marketing would be better than in engineering? It's definitely not what the candidate came in for, and the interviewer also doesn't mention if they would hire him for engineering, just for marketing.
- QuercusMax 5y agoYeah, it doesn't sound like the real Feynman at all to me. Where's the wit and charm?
- jfengel 5y agoJust a bit of a talky wise-ass, really. That much, at least, actually sounds like Feynman. But for the most part, no, it didn't really sound much like him.
- numpad0 5y agoSounded like Stallman than Feynman tbh.
- zem 5y agoyep, the joke was getting at the "talk lots and lots of bullshit" aspect. it's the engineer's stereotype of a marketing person. like, "hey, this guy won't cut it as an engineer - he couldn't even answer the manhole question. but he sure can spout bullshit with the best of them!"
- 13of40 5y agoWhen I worked there in the early 2000's I had a friend of a friend whose fiancée graduated with a bachelor's degree in either CS or EE and applied for a developer position. Somehow, and I struggle to understand the mechanics of this because engineering was highly compartmentalized away from the "business" parts of the business, they managed to turn her down for an engineering role and got her a job in marketing. Also, the manhole cover question was considered déclassé as early as 1999. One that was still making the rounds was...let's see if I can remember this... You have a soda machine that has three buttons, Coke, Pepsi, and Random (Coke or Pepsi). You know that your trickster coworker has swapped all of the button labels, so none of them are correct. What's the optimal strategy for getting a Coke out of the machine?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- cacois 5y agoThat was actually fun to think through for a minute. Easy, but I can see how a young me nervous at an interview might have stumbled. Its why I hate those things. They aren't testing analytical or creative ability, they are testing grace under pressure - a quality I have found is gained through experience.
- csells 5y agoIt depends on your definition of optimal. If you optimize for time, then pressing each button one at a time until a Coke comes out. Plus it doesn't take any brain cells so I can get back to coding quicker. : )
- RHSeeger 5y agoYou can also optimize for - The highest likelihood of getting your choice with a single pick - The least amount of money spent to guarantee getting your choice
- goodcanadian 5y agoIf you take as given, "none of them are correct," I think both of those optimisations still start with pressing Pepsi. It is either Coke or random, so you have about a 75% chance of getting what you want on the first press.
- cableshaft 5y agoI was expecting something a little different, where they passed on him because he didn't give the 'right' answer (what the interviewer had preconceived and/or looked up online).
- thom 5y agoWell, that _is_ the conceit here. The ‘right’ answer is that all manhole covers are round because a round cover can’t fall into the hole.
- JMTQp8lwXL 5y agoI'm fairly certain a square manhole cover with a sufficient perimeter would still have no chance of falling into a hole, depending on the diameter of said hole.
- beached_whale 5y agoIf you provide a sufficient lip on the hole such that the minimum side is larger than any of the four diagonals it would work.
- kragen 5y agoRight, but this makes the area of the cover twice the area of the hole, and the cover twice as heavy as it would need to be if it were round. As Feynman pointed out, even round covers are already pretty heavy—I injured my wrist (ligaments?) from the tension of lifting one in my teens. However, if this were the only consideration, you could get a wider-diameter manhole with a smaller cover by making it in the form of an equilateral triangle, as evidently Nashua, NH, does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhole_cover#Other https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhole_cover#Other. Indeed, you don't need to stop there; if you curve the sides of the triangle in toward the center, you can get a manhole with an even smaller surface area for a given diameter, although at some point the extra "diameter" will be too curved to be useful.
- MathYouF 5y ago
- hereforphone 5y agoBut can he do a heap sort on the whiteboard, that's the real question
- Qw3r7 5y agoProbably not, but he could sleep with his bosses wife
- janeroe 5y agoWhy not? He was into computing. His lectures on computation (transcribed from his course in California Institute of Technology) are published: https://www.amazon.com/Feynman-Lectures-Computation-Frontiers-Physics/dp/0738202967 https://www.amazon.com/Feynman-Lectures-Computation-Frontier...
- jandrese 5y agoHe worked for an early computer manufacturer at one point in his life. The completely wacky Thinking Machines Corporation, who built probably the strangest computer architecture ever commercially developed. There were building massively parallel systems back in the 80s. Literally thousands of parallel processors, but each processor was only a single bit machine with an incredibly primitive ALU and little else. Or maybe it would be better to think of them as the first GPU builder, at least 20 years ahead of their time.
- jbay808 5y agoThey're very good lectures, too.
- desireco42 5y agoThis is epic :). I can imagine how interviewer would be pissed off if you come this prepared. They love those koan type questions but don't like when you turn the tables on them.
- dudul 5y agoI'm so pissed at these stupid questions during interviews that now I start doing that. The last one was "how many tennis balls could you fit in the Empire State Building?". I spent maybe 10 minutes asking idiotic "clarifying" questions before the interviewer realized I was messing with him (e.g. "can I use any color for the balls?" "Do I have a crew to help me?" "Can I try to crush them?" etc). He got pretty upset yeah, saying that I wasn't taking it seriously. I just said "with a question like that I think you're the one not taking it seriously". I didn't get the job.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- zepolen 5y agoSo what's not serious about that question assuming it was for a programming position?
- 988747 5y agoFor one, it has nothing to do with programming. Also, nothing to do with time management, people skills, or anything else that programmers do on their job.
- jfengel 5y agoIt's an estimation problem, and programming is full of estimation problems. How many servers will I need? Will I be able to fit this in RAM or do I need an on-disk solution? How long will it take to go from 10 users to 10 million users, and will I be able to scale the design? You don't need the exact value, just a rough order of magnitude. That's the whole point of the big-O notation. A problem like that is lighthearted, which has the advantage of removing all of the computery specifics that could bog you down in a realistic question. The ability to pull numbers out of your ass quickly, and still have them be within a factor-of-2 of an answer that would take weeks or months to gather, is critical for a developer. The ability to guess that is also a good indicator of whether you're likely to be a good culture fit.
- hungryforcodes 5y agoI've read it before, but it's always such a fun read. The author got Feynman's speaking style down perfectly.
- goodcanadian 5y agoWell, I think it gets it wrong when it comes to the safety issue question. Something being possible, even if unlikely, is obviously more dangerous than something being impossible. Feynman would definitely understand that even if he insisted that the main reason for the shape of the cover is the shape of the hole (which is probably true). EDIT: Assuming Feynman is deliberately being obtuse, he might point out that, while unlikely, if the round cover is placed on its edge, it could roll away potentially injuring someone or damaging property.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- JadeNB 5y ago> Something being possible, even if unlikely, is obviously more dangerous than something being impossible. Feynman would definitely understand that even if he insisted that the main reason for the shape of the cover is the shape of the hole (which is probably true). This is a very good point for someone who is known, among other things, for his O-ring demonstration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report#Role_of_Richard_Feynman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report#Role_...).
- hungryforcodes 5y agoLove the o-ring story. One of the reasons he's my hero.
- panzagl 5y agoWell, the computer company he did work for isn't around anymore, so Microsoft would probably be ok passing on him.
- crmd 5y agoI couldn’t help but read that in Feynman’s voice!
- jmgrosen 5y agoOne would hope Microsoft wouldn't hire him due to his long history of rampant sexism, but, being realistic, they would not likely care.
- gmadsen 5y agoah yes lets tear down any and all great thinkers, so we don't need to compete on a competency basis.
- Torock 5y agoHe was a sexist, accusing him of some inane bias isn't going to change the fact that the man was a sexist
- belter 5y agoYour comment led me to be the 10,000 today https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/ to discover Feynmans Women's Bathing Swimsuits...
- mhh__ 5y agoYou're being downvoted, but I do think it's an important thing to mention as we tend to worship feynman, which is OK, but I would hate for it to lead for anyone to act like he could be around women.
- dpcx 5y agoI misread the title and thought it was talking about Stallman, and I wondered why he would ever apply for a job at Microsoft...
- zabzonk 5y agoI've made all those observations (and more) regarding manhole covers. And what job did he apply for?
- da4b3c01a3 5y agoPhysicists must be the dumbest hypocrites on earth. On one hand, they claim rationality and on the other hand, they build weapons for worthless fanatics whose soul is less valuable than termites.
- msravi 5y agoIn the same vein: The Barometer Question and Calandra's account https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barometer_question https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barometer_question
- LeifCarrotson 5y agoI'd never seen that before, that's excellent! The original PDF is at https://www.unz.com/PDF/PERIODICAL/SaturdayRev-1968dec21/62/ https://www.unz.com/PDF/PERIODICAL/SaturdayRev-1968dec21/62/, which is includes a nice drawing of the student speaking with a building superintendent while holding a barometer, but to say more would be to spoil the punchline. Here is the text: > Angels on a Pin By ALEXANDER CALANDRA SOME time ago, I received a call from a colleague who asked if I would be the referee on the grading of an examination question. He was about to give a student a zero for his answer to a physics question, while the student claimed he should receive a perfect score and would if the system were not set up against the student. The instructor and the student agreed to submit this to an impartial arbiter, and I was selected. I went to my colleague’s office and read the examination question: “Show how it is possible to determine the height of a tall building with the aid of a barometer.” The student had answered: “Take the barometer to the top of the building, attach a long rope to it, lower the barometer to the street, and then bring it up, measuring the length of the rope. The length of the rope is the height of the building.” I pointed out that the student really had a strong case for full credit, since he had answered the question completely and correctly. On the other hand, if full credit were given, it could well contribute to a high grade for the student in his physics course. A high grade is supposed to certify competence in physics, but the answer did not confirm this. I suggested that the student have another try at answering the question. I was not surprised that my colleague agreed, but I was surprised that the student did. I gave the student six minutes to answer the question, with the warning that his answer should show some know- ledge of physics. At the end of five minutes, he had not written anything. I asked if he wished to give up, but he said no. He had many answers to this problem; he was just thinking of the best one. I excused myself for interrupting him, and asked him to please go on. In the next minute, he dashed off his answer which read: “Take the barometer to the top of the building and lean over the edge of the roof. Drop the barometer. timing its fall with a stopwatch. Then, using the formula S=1/2at^2, calculate the height of the building.” At this point, I asked my colleague if he would give up. He conceded, and I gave the student almost full credit. In leaving my colleague’s office, I recalled that the student had said he had other answers to the problem, so I asked him what they were. “Oh, yes,” said the student. “There are many ways of getting the height of a tall building with the aid of a barometer. For example, you could take the barometer out on a sunny day and measure the height of the barometer, the length of its shadow, and the length of the shadow of the building, and by the use of a simple proportion, determine the height of the building.” “Fine,” I said. “And the others?” “Yes,” said the student. “There is a very basic measurement method that you will like. In this method, you take the barometer and begin to walk up the stairs, As you climb the stairs, you mark off the length of the barometer along the wall. You then count the number of marks, and this will give you the height of the building in barometer units. A very direct method. “Of course, if you want a more sophisticated method, you can tie the barometer to the end of a string, swing it as a pendulum, and determine the value of ‘g’ at the street level and at the top of the building. From the difference between the two values of ‘g,’ the height of the building can, in principle, be calculated.” Finally he concluded, there are many other ways of solving the problem, “Probably the best,” he said, “is to take the barometer to the basement and knock on the superintendent's door, When the superintendent answers, you speak to him as follows: “Mr. Superintendent, here I have a fine barometer, if you will tell me the height of this building, I will give you this barometer.’” At this point, I asked the student if he really did not know the conventional answer to this question. He admitted that he did, but said that he was fed up with high school and college instructors trying to teach him how to think, to use the “scientific method,” and to explore the deep inner logic of the subject in a pedantic way, as is often done in the new mathematics, rather than teaching him the structure of the subject. With this in mind, he decided to revive scholasticism as an academic lark to challenge the Sputnik-panicked classrooms of America.
- Intermernet 5y ago"It looks like you're trying to create a pictorial representation of the mathematical expressions describing the behavior and interaction of subatomic particles. Would you like help with that?"
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- aeternum 5y agoIn Feynman's day, people climbing down a manhole ladder were still mostly elliptical in cross-section. It's only nowadays that most people are mostly circular.
- jbluepolarbear 5y agoRichard Feynman is not someone to look up to, he was an arrogant, sexist asshole that liked the sound of his own voice. He’d be a great fit for the GOP.
- serverholic 5y agoAlmost everyone was sexist in his time. But yes, let's please continue to cancel history.
- jbluepolarbear 5y agoYour statement is what’s wrong with how history is viewed. I wasn’t talking specifically to the article, but the comments. He’s being glorified for his personality and his sexist views are were very much apart of his personality. Don’t erase him from history, but also don’t act like he is some role model.
- serverholic 5y agoPlease show me where anyone in this thread is glorifying anything close to sexism.
- jbluepolarbear 5y agoYou have poor reading comprehension. Glorying him and his personality includes his sexist personality as well.
- serverholic 5y agoIt’s really not. I wouldn’t have known he was sexist until you said something.
- jbluepolarbear 5y agoYou’re wrong, please stop responding. And I know your downvoting me. Your accounts over the threshold and my top comment is flagged, so it’s you.
- gorwell 5y agoIt is rather remarkable how unenlightened and vulgar our interview questions used to be. Manhole is the language of the savage from an age long ago, isn't that something? Thank Ford our omniscient DEI Controllers replaced it with Personhole! As a result our species thrived as never before.
- babelfish 5y agoWhat are you talking about?
- hoten 5y agoGP saw an opportunity to be anti-woke and jumped on it. It's what passes for humor in some circles. Jump on a "woke" thing that is clearly ridiculous and no more than 0.001% of people agree with, offer it up as a strawman of PC culture, and use it to ridicule liberals. It's especially egregious here because it has nothing to do with the shared article, unless you consider any conversation on Feynman as a bridge to talk about modern political correctness wrt. to Feynman.
- gorwell 5y agoIt's not to ridicule liberals. I'm a liberal. It's to mock the illiberalism and totalitarianism that is replacing liberalism, and is increasingly flexing its power in our cultural institutions.
- babelfish 5y agoHow was that relevant to the article?
- gorwell 5y agoBecause it used an outdated term according to the new rules. Have you missed how many terms are being retired and renamed? git checkout master branch is a well known example here, but that's not a lone example and it'll continue until meeting resistance from its own side.
- okareaman 5y agoHow many ping pong balls would it take to fill a 747? Why do you ask? What problem are you trying to solve? We want to understand your thought process I'd think it was stupid to fill a 747 with ping pong balls and think about something else
- hef19898 5y agoAlso, you need pilots. And never mind ping pong balls are highly flammable and thus dangerous goods. Maybe they want to burn down a 747?
- Hokusai 5y agoThe problem is that it is impossible to give a good answer without context. Did it matter a 2% error? There are cost limits? Maybe you don't even need to know the number of ping pong balls but it would be faster to transport them by ship....
- s0rce 5y agoIsn't the context an interview, ie. give a decent order of magnitude estimate with back of the envelope methods.
- Hokusai 5y agoOh, yes. It's about having a shared culture more than intelligence or knowledge. I know what I will answer if I wanted the job, that does not mean that it's a good answer, it just means that I have the background to know what are they looking for.
- RHSeeger 5y agoProbably, but to be fair, when a client asks "can you put a button here that sends an alert email when it's clicked?"... a reasonable first question may very well be "what is it you're hoping to accomplish here... so we can tell if such a button is really the right answer". In many cases, the button isn't the right answer. And being the kind of person that digs to find out what the problem trying to be solved actually is... can be very important.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- davidw 5y agoOk, this is funny and odd. This immediately reminded me of the scene in Cryptonimicon where Waterhouse takes a 'simple' math test. It apparently reminded my past self of the same thing 11 years ago, when this was posted back then. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1866629 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1866629 (I dug up the actual passage from the book, so you can read it)
- the__alchemist 5y agoI listened to it as an audiobook while driving, and listened to that segment 3 times back-to-back.
- ChrisArchitect 5y agoOld previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1866305 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1866305
- ww520 5y agoThose are actually some very good answers.
- SavantIdiot 5y agoIt amazes me how defensive, threatened, and snarky people get about interview questions. When leading an interview, do you know how hard it is to tease out if someone is a creative thinker or just a bullshitter? Very hard. You come at it from multiple angles. Sometimes you need questions like this, it is part of the interviewing toolkit along with coding examples, and domain-specific challenges. EDIT: And sometimes you just need to hire a drone that will follow orders and not think creatively: just implement the spec as-is. WHy? because tech needs all sorts of skills. You don't need (and can't manage) a team of Feynmans. It would be crazy, his ego was huge.
- xkjkls 5y agoEh, your mileage may vary, but I've normally found too completely open ended questions impossible to ever really get a good signal from. I've done enough interviews to feel like questions with a pretty binary "you either get it or you don't", evaluation make it pretty hard to judge someone. I'd rather ask questions where there are multiple levels of evaluation, rather than a single trick.
- munchbunny 5y agotease out if someone is a creative thinker While I get your point and have been in a similar position myself as the interviewer, the longer I've been working the more I think "creative" is just as much of an overloaded and under-defined term as "smart". These days I just look for the ability to think through complex things methodically, and the creative spark will show itself later, and in place of innate creativity, the ability to churn through lots of ideas when it's needed is a serviceable substitute. And if by "creative" the interviewers (not necessarily you) mean the ability to come up with novel but compelling ideas, that's something that happens on timescales longer than an interview and certainly not under interview pressure. The people I know who are best at generating novel, compelling ideas do it on the timescales of weeks to months.
- nickkell 5y agoI thought it was a perfectly reasonable question to ask someone trying out for Microsoft's new manhole design division
- 300bps 5y agoI can't read anything about Richard Feynman without thinking of the letter he wrote his wife 16 months after she passed away. "I love my wife. My wife is dead." https://fs.blog/2013/08/richard-feynman-love-letter/ https://fs.blog/2013/08/richard-feynman-love-letter/
- l0b0 5y agoCould've been funny if the interviewee was someone like Descartes rather than one of the most lucid, funny and friendly voices of the 20th century.