3 ms·

Many years ago before a demo we discovered that a program failed to run properly but it did run successfully the next time. We couldn't figure why and the cloc

Many years ago before a demo we discovered that a program failed to run properly but it did run successfully the next time. We couldn't figure why and the clock was ticking. We made a script to run it twice, fail then success, and the demo was good. Then we debugged the issue, which was something trivial (I can't remember the details) but proper debugging and fixing under time pressure is never trivial. So, an interviewer might appreciate that balancing of signs if told that it is the fastest way make it work (and pass your demo,) only to fix it later. Once proven that the hacked code gives the right solution maybe you could have offered to send them the correct code on the next day or keep working on it if they wished so.

Elte 3y ago
Long ago in high school, I entered a LEGO robot competition with some friends. Tests were line following, collision detection, etc. One of the tests involved the bot being sent on a collision course with a wall. It had to detect running into it and turn around. This was one of the easiest ones to complete, but shortly before the test started we realized that our pressure sensor was malfunctioning and didn't send any more signals. There was no more time to swap it out, I don't even think we had a spare to be honest. Not wanting to give up points on an easy test, we gauged the distance the bot had to cover in the test, and quickly uploaded some new software. At the start of the test, our bot moved forward for 4 seconds, stopped, then turned around. Full points on that one! Some times things just need to work and we can worry about them working _correctly_ later...
- salawat 3y ago
  You... Literally made a test defeat device. In other words, you pulled a Dieselgate, in LEGO form. Were I to judge your implementation, not only would you sacrifice those points, I'd have disqualified you from the competition on ethical grounds. There is never an excuse for smoke and mirrors. Never.

Elte 3y ago

Long ago in high school, I entered a LEGO robot competition with some friends. Tests were line following, collision detection, etc. One of the tests involved the bot being sent on a collision course with a wall. It had to detect running into it and turn around. This was one of the easiest ones to complete, but shortly before the test started we realized that our pressure sensor was malfunctioning and didn't send any more signals. There was no more time to swap it out, I don't even think we had a spare to be honest. Not wanting to give up points on an easy test, we gauged the distance the bot had to cover in the test, and quickly uploaded some new software. At the start of the test, our bot moved forward for 4 seconds, stopped, then turned around. Full points on that one! Some times things just need to work and we can worry about them working _correctly_ later...

salawat 3y ago
You... Literally made a test defeat device. In other words, you pulled a Dieselgate, in LEGO form. Were I to judge your implementation, not only would you sacrifice those points, I'd have disqualified you from the competition on ethical grounds. There is never an excuse for smoke and mirrors. Never.