5 ms·
The whole game of studying is predicting what's going to be on the test, rather than nobly mastering the material in general and then doing well on the test by
by brhsagain 4y ago
The whole game of studying is predicting what's going to be on the test, rather than nobly mastering the material in general and then doing well on the test by applying your knowledge. Anyone saying this is cheating either did badly in school, spent impossibly exorbitant amounts of time on school, or is being a hypocrite.
Also, if the article hadn't revealed the interview question, I would've assumed it was like, write out a proof of Fermat's last theorem or something. Even if you don't think of comparing the sum, the next obvious solution is to use a hash table to track duplicates, which I highly doubt they would've failed someone for. So basically this is a story of someone's non-cheating on something relatively trivial anyway.
This probably increased the author's chances of going to hell about as much as standing next to your friend in 7th grade while he smoked a cigarette contributed to your chances of lung cancer.
- jimmaswell 4y ago> nobly mastering the material in general and then doing well on the test This is what I almost always did, because I was there to learn and wanted to better myself and actually know the material. Sometimes I'd know some nonsense was on the test like memorizing an arbitrary complicated formula but that was the exception. Always tended to do well too.
- brhsagain 4y agoCould be different era/circumstances, but when I was in school this would've been impossible. There was just way too much material to cover. If someone from my high school had claimed they aced all their classes by actually learning the shit out of every subject, I would've been like, either you have a 200 IQ, or you have more hours in the day than me, or you're actually doing some version of this: http://paulgraham.com/lesson.html http://paulgraham.com/lesson.html