For those who think this doesn't sound at least a little bit like Feynman, I highly recommend this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM
reminds me of this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05WS0WN7zMQ
[deleted]
If Richard Feynman applied for a job at Microsoft (2002)
61–70 of 81 posts
Re: If Richard Feynman applied for a job at Microsoft (2002)
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had a four hour long interview for a systems programming/administration position where plebeian admins were allowed to grill me for about 25% of the time, asking me to whiteboard viable algorithms for cute little problems they concocted. All of my solutions would have functioned flawlessly and would have met all of the stated requirements, but they didn't involve the same thought processes that the interviewers had…
As much as they're interviewing you, you're interviewing them as well. If you're a smart guy, you hopefully have enough prospects that if you don't want to work with pedantic nitwits, you don't have to.
Many interviewers don't realize it.
Re: If Richard Feynman applied for a job at Microsoft (2002)
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I know Norvig's solver has constraint propagation (maybe it didn't have it in the first version though).
Nothing really clever though - he only applies the two most basic sudoku strategies: If a square has only one possible value, eliminate it from the square's peers. If a unit has only one possible place for a value, then put the value there. And then he notes that those simple strategies combined with search yields very reasonable run times.
Actually, for 9x9 Sudoku doing any more advanced propagation is pointless, since it will slow down the time to find the solution (assuming a reasonably fast search process). If one wants to solve 9x9 Sudokus without search, full propagation combined with shaving (hypothetical reasoning: if I assigned this square this value, woould it lead to an inconsistency) suffices as far as is known currently (no proof, just experiments, http://www.4c.ucc.ie/~hsimonis/sudoku.pdf).
For 16x16, it is more of a toss-up if one should use more advanced propagation. The solve-times are still so low though, that it doesn't really matter (tens of milliseconds). For 25x25 it starts to get interesting. In my experience, full propagation on lines, rows, and regions is needed, but more than that slows it down. Without a good heuristic (some learning process, prefferably coupled with randomized restarts), the solve-time easily goes up into hours. Wih a good heuristic, minutes seems to be a reasonable time-span to hope for.
Re: If Richard Feynman applied for a job at Microsoft (2002)
#64For those who think this doesn't sound at least a little bit like Feynman, I highly recommend this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM
This video reminds me of an essay from Eliezer Yudkowsky¹. Feynman was basically forced to give a mysterious answer to a mysterious question. He did so, but not before talking about semantic stop-signs², how "magnetic force" could be one, and why it shouldn't be. Brilliant.
[1]: http://lesswrong.com/lw/iu/mysterious_answers_to_mysterious_... [2]: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Semantic_stopsign
Re: If Richard Feynman applied for a job at Microsoft (2002)
#65Reminds me of the bit in Cryptonomicon where Lawrence Waterhouse takes an intelligence test for the navy: "They gave him an intelligence test. The first question on the math part had to do with boats on a river: Port Smith is 100 miles upstream of Port Jones. The river flows at 5 miles per hour. The boat goes through water at 10 miles per hour. How long does it take to go from Port Smith to Port Jones? How long to co…
unfortunately, there is some practical truth in this Navy evaluation - Lawrence would definitely failed (ie. wouldn't complete them on-time and according to SOP) most of the assignments in the Navy or military in general.
That would simply be an indication that he was not suited for applying to the Navy. I find that many people who suck and fail at something may truly suck at whatever it is, but they're actually quite awesome at something else. The sad thing is that most people don't know how to find their path and even fewer people know how to set people on the right path where they can achieve their potential.
Re: If Richard Feynman applied for a job at Microsoft (2002)
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
unfortunately, there is some practical truth in this Navy evaluation - Lawrence would definitely failed (ie. wouldn't complete them on-time and according to SOP) most of the assignments in the Navy or military in general.
That would simply be an indication that he was not suited for applying to the Navy. I find that many people who suck and fail at something may truly suck at whatever it is, but they're actually quite awesome at something else. The sad thing is that most people don't know how to find their path and even fewer people know how to set people on the right path where they can achieve their potential.
Don't worry - he ends up doing the right thing in the end. Read the book, though, it's full of good stuff like that.
Re: If Richard Feynman applied for a job at Microsoft (2002)
#67To be a touch prosaic, is it simplest to cover a round hole with a round cover? No, Round holes are drilled. Covers for them can be simply cut squarely from stock. Why have a geometric match? Either way provision has usually to be made for covers to he bolted and locked down even if they are resting on a flange.
Re: If Richard Feynman applied for a job at Microsoft (2002)
#68I think I've seen this before, except Feynman was going on about how circles aren't the only constant width shapes: http://www.cut-the-knot.org/Curriculum/Geometry/CWStar.shtml
Someone used this principle to create this strange bicycle: http://www.china.org.cn/china/photos/2009-05/07/content_1773...
Re: If Richard Feynman applied for a job at Microsoft (2002)
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had a four hour long interview for a systems programming/administration position where plebeian admins were allowed to grill me for about 25% of the time, asking me to whiteboard viable algorithms for cute little problems they concocted. All of my solutions would have functioned flawlessly and would have met all of the stated requirements, but they didn't involve the same thought processes that the interviewers had…
As much as they're interviewing you, you're interviewing them as well. If you're a smart guy, you hopefully have enough prospects that if you don't want to work with pedantic nitwits, you don't have to.
I was interviewing them as well, but I was 4 months unemployed with a disabled wife that couldn't work but whose disability claim was in limbo. I might have actually taken the job had I been offered one, sadly.
Fortunately, all's well that ends well. An old headhunter I'd used in the past tossed my info along (for FREE!) to my current boss. After talking to me on the phone, he gave me the old "We don't have a position open, but I'll call you if something opens up" line. I wrote it off, but he worked to get a position opened up for me and I'm genuinely doing what I love to do for a living these days. It involves Information Security, physical security/surveillance and general-purpose IT work (Sysadmin, programming and networking). I'm basically in geek heaven. It's also 6 miles from home, giving me the perfect excuse to ride my bike to work every day, rain or shine.
Re: If Richard Feynman applied for a job at Microsoft (2002)
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
A ficitonal interloculor to whom one attributes poor arguments in order to easily refute them?
No. My usage is perhaps a new use of the word, but it fits with the metaphor of a man of straw. Is there another word already in existence, that describes what I wanted to say? "A ficitonal interloculor to whom one attributes one's own's arguments in order to make them sound more profound."
"Oscar Wilde".