Live data from Hacker News

Dark Motives and Elective Use of Brainteaser Interview Questions

onlinelibrary.wiley.com

151–160 of 300 posts

Re: Dark Motives and Elective Use of Brainteaser Interview Questions

#151

I had one of these brainteaser questions in an interview once, and I liked my mathematician friend’s answer to it the best. Q: Given infinite setup time and infinite money, how would you fill the inside of a 747 with ping pong balls as quickly as possible? A: Define the inside of the plane as the exterior. Now, by definition, all ping pong balls are inside the plane. QED.

My answer:

I use my infinite resources to become benevolent dictator of Earth.

With my endless wealth I prevent climate change, provide the basic needs of every person on the planet, educate the world, and set up a global system of sustainable reproduction. I have infinite resources so I assume it's not eugenics or something dystopian, but more a collective human understanding of responsibility. Finally, with our future ensured, I dedicate as many of the world's top minds as possible to preserving my own life at any cost.

Once I have achieved immortality, likely by transplanting my mind into a robot body that can be updated over time so I remain the most advanced being on the planet, I steer the course of human history far into the future. All human suffering is ended. We all work as one to better ourselves. We spend decades, centuries, millennia improving not only our society, but our technology for inserting ping pong balls into 747s.

Under my kind leadership as an immortal god-king of increasingly sophisticated artificial intelligence, humanity becomes the dominant species in a surprisingly crowded universe. With each new species we meet, we find new allies in our advancement. Entire galaxies unite under my rule and never-ending resources, each furthering my transcendence of life and the speed at which we can put small plastic balls into extremely archaic public transportation.

Finally, at the far end of time, when there is nothing left to learn, no secret of the universe left unknown to me—I am now a single bio-mechanical entity composed of all intelligent life in existence—my setup is complete. Using technology so advanced that it cannot be described by words we have so far invented, technology so unimaginable it exceeds the power we ascribe to magic, I fill the plane. It is instantaneous. There is no time during which the plane is being filled. There is only before and after it was filled.

The creator of the universe descends on its final moments. The being sees the plane. It weeps for the beauty its children have created.

Re: Dark Motives and Elective Use of Brainteaser Interview Questions

#152
post #28

I dont work in tech, im an engine mechanic by trade, but im fascinated to know why/how often this happens in a tech interview? Do programmers/sys admins really endure this kind of aggravation in their interviews? The hardest question I've ever asked one of my shop mechanics during an interview was how does Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) in a Diesel engine affect thermal efficiency, smoke output and emissions of the…

IME, it happens more at 'pop-tech' companies where engineers are lining up for jobs. At normal tech companies where they're just trying to solve problems and make money, it seems to happen a lot less. The latter companies generally just want to see if you're not an idiot, that your resume is correct, and that you're not an asshole.

Re: Dark Motives and Elective Use of Brainteaser Interview Questions

#153
post #7

As someone who does both a lot of interviewing (at Google) and gives a lot of advice on interviewing to people just starting out, this rhymes with my intuition about why some people get into interviews: even without the use of brainteasers (which, for the record, are not used at Google), the interview process is hard . People rarely come out of it without at least a twinge of frustration of humiliation. I'm not immun…

> I have a pet theory that when people interview they bring this buried frustration into the room with them and use the interviewing process to play the part of the people they feel humiliated them.

I think it has more to do with impostor syndrome and a fear that a new person will expose them as the frauds they perceive themselves as.

In my experience, sometimes that fear is justified. The people whom I've run across who are the most condescending to engineers who "haven't proved themselves" often have the most lax coding standards on the team. They're often the ones who build Rube Goldberg programs and who never document their work - you can't be replaced if nobody knows how your core programs work.

Re: Dark Motives and Elective Use of Brainteaser Interview Questions

#154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People that don't get the offer tend to complain about such things. They are asking questions to measure how you think, to measure your potential, to see how you handle stress. If you are stressing over an interview, what will you do when you lose $1 million in 10 seconds?

If you are stressing over an interview, what will you do when you lose $1 million in 10 seconds? Beats me - but the "skills" demonstrated in the interview process you're defending -- "suck up; just keep going online until you memorize enough canned answers to most of these dang questions; suck up, suck up, suck up" -- certainly aren't going to help. If anything, they're basically orthogonal to the set of competencies…

Beats me - but the "skills" demonstrated in the interview process you're defending -- "suck up; just keep going online until you memorize enough canned answers to most of these dang questions; suck up, suck up, suck up" -- certainly aren't going to help.

Right. People who don't think of Comp Sci knowledge as a set of substantive first principles, just as meaningless tokens they need to memorize and regurgitate to get the job -- those are precisely the people who should be weeded out. Each one of those questions is not merely a chance to "collect" an arbitrary thing. It's also an opportunity to practice applying basic knowledge and techniques.

If anything, they're basically orthogonal to the set of competencies needed to deal with that kind of a situation.

You may well need to spot a deadlock or a race condition in code. You may well need to spot code that is inefficient by construction, in precisely that kind of situation.

Re: Dark Motives and Elective Use of Brainteaser Interview Questions

#155

I recently interviewed at Apple and one interviewer caused me to decide to never work there. I was put into a conference room and had 8 people over 6 hours come in and interview me one after another. Each person asked me about my background and then jumped into a whiteboard coding problem. Most of the interviewers were understanding of the fact that writing code on a whiteboard is nothing like writing code on a compu…

So you met 8 people, and one of them was a jerk? I'd say that's a pretty acceptable jerk coefficient for a workplace. I've been in places north of 0.5.

The right number is zero and a UBI until they figure out how to stop being jerks. (My primary personal reason for supporting a UBI is I want to be able to say "No rational employer should employ you" without that implying "so you should be homeless and starve.")

But short of that, the right number is zero on the interview circuit. You can employ jerks if you have to, but don't put them in more positions where they have to interact with others than necessary. Give them the legacy products where you can't staff a team of more than one qualified person anyway. Give them an office. And keep the door closed.

Remember that a jerk is basically a 0.1x developer - an employee who causes other employees to lose productivity by spending time working around the jerkiness, taking a morale hit, etc. Even a remarkably productive jerk at best only compensates for their negative effect on people they work with, and most jerks are not consistently remarkably productive. https://medium.freecodecamp.org/we-fired-our-top-talent-best... is a good example of a company learning that lesson a little too late. A company that signals that they trust their jerks enough to make hiring decisions and to represent the company's culture to potential new hires is a company that signals they're actively cool with jerks (or incapable of noticing, which has the same effect).

If a jerk makes a good employee unhappy and they leave, the jerk is a net negative. And if you keep employing the jerks, you'll find yourself with a 0.5 jerk coefficient on your hands very quickly.

Re: Dark Motives and Elective Use of Brainteaser Interview Questions

#156

I had one of these brainteaser questions in an interview once, and I liked my mathematician friend’s answer to it the best. Q: Given infinite setup time and infinite money, how would you fill the inside of a 747 with ping pong balls as quickly as possible? A: Define the inside of the plane as the exterior. Now, by definition, all ping pong balls are inside the plane. QED.

> how would you fill the inside of a 747 with ping pong balls

Funny you should ask, because that was actually one of my primary responsibilities at my last job!

Re: Dark Motives and Elective Use of Brainteaser Interview Questions

#157

I recently interviewed at Apple and one interviewer caused me to decide to never work there. I was put into a conference room and had 8 people over 6 hours come in and interview me one after another. Each person asked me about my background and then jumped into a whiteboard coding problem. Most of the interviewers were understanding of the fact that writing code on a whiteboard is nothing like writing code on a compu…

So you met 8 people, and one of them was a jerk? I'd say that's a pretty acceptable jerk coefficient for a workplace. I've been in places north of 0.5.

In my opinion the entire process was a jerk. An entire day of whiteboard problems? What a waste of time for everyone involved.

Re: Dark Motives and Elective Use of Brainteaser Interview Questions

#158
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most algorithms questions only prove one thing: whether a candidate has brushed up on algorithms beforehand. That has some usefulness, being a proxy measure for conscientiousness, but offers little beyond that. Maybe that they’re able to follow the reasoning, but it could just as easily be learned by rote and parroted back. The fact is that no one comes up with a from-scratch efficient algorithm for doing anything in…

The test lost its validity over time, but how many people care about their craft enough to know how to write software without using a library, and be willing to reason about it from first principles? Or with systematic method? They would be capable of doing original work. The rest I'd give CRUD tasks to.

Do substantive enough work, give it enough time, and first principles will still bite the butt of the CRUD app maintainer.

Re: Dark Motives and Elective Use of Brainteaser Interview Questions

#159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are stressing over an interview, what will you do when you lose $1 million in 10 seconds? Beats me - but the "skills" demonstrated in the interview process you're defending -- "suck up; just keep going online until you memorize enough canned answers to most of these dang questions; suck up, suck up, suck up" -- certainly aren't going to help. If anything, they're basically orthogonal to the set of competencies…

Beats me - but the "skills" demonstrated in the interview process you're defending -- "suck up; just keep going online until you memorize enough canned answers to most of these dang questions; suck up, suck up, suck up" -- certainly aren't going to help. Right. People who don't think of Comp Sci knowledge as a set of substantive first principles, just as meaningless tokens they need to memorize and regurgitate to get…

> You may well need to spot a deadlock or a race condition in code. You may well need to spot code that is inefficient by construction, in precisely that kind of situation.

How is that relevant to the practice of "memorizing enough canned answers to most of these dang questions"?

Re: Dark Motives and Elective Use of Brainteaser Interview Questions

#160
post #35
post #7

As someone who does both a lot of interviewing (at Google) and gives a lot of advice on interviewing to people just starting out, this rhymes with my intuition about why some people get into interviews: even without the use of brainteasers (which, for the record, are not used at Google), the interview process is hard . People rarely come out of it without at least a twinge of frustration of humiliation. I'm not immun…

I failed a google interview and it is frustrating. Emotional speaking, the rejection was hard but also other rejections as well. At least at google i got feedback, audi did not. No feedback after coding project and 2 interviews sucks hard...

This - As an interviewer I hate giving feedback on failed interviewees. It always feels like an insult as well as invitation for them to defend themselves after the decision has been made (which means I have to say no again, doubling my unhappiness and presumably theirs.

As an interviewEE , though, feedback is essential to improving and definitely reduces the sting of a failed interview. (My sample size of both sucesses and failures is small but feels huge anyway).

Post reply on HN