Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If Richard Feynman applied for a job at Microsoft (2002)

sellsbrothers.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 220 posts

Re: If Richard Feynman applied for a job at Microsoft (2002)

#71

Post by ineedasername »

grumpyprole wrote: post #66
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd never seen that before, that's excellent! The original PDF is at 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 w…

It sounds like the original question was just badly worded. It should have read "Show how it is possible to determine the height of a tall building using only a barometer.". The other answers, while not incorrect, do assume the availability of additional items such as rope and watches.

The one about direct measurement wouldn't require anything else. You're just climbing the stairs and counting. Doing it the "right" way would also require the stairs (well, and elevator would work for that too, but I would count the elevator as an additional item which itself uses complex mechanics and cables to get you to the top.)

Re: If Richard Feynman applied for a job at Microsoft (2002)

#72

Post by TchoBeer »

seiferteric wrote: post #50
adflux wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is essentially the Monty Hall problem. First choice is 1/3d to be correct, if this choice is wrong, then change, because you will now improve your odds to be 1/2

Maybe I am misunderstanding but the question says NONE of the labels are correct right? If so, I was thinking of it this way. If you press coke, it can only be random or Pepsi (.25?), if you press Pepsi, it can only be coke or random (.75?), if you press random it can only be coke or Pepsi (.5) (oddly this is still random 50/50 :) ). So the optimal on first try would be to press Pepsi?

This was actually my first-glance answer. Consider that the Pepsi label can't possibly be the Pepsi button, but the other two can.

Re: If Richard Feynman applied for a job at Microsoft (2002)

#73

Post by ryandvm »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #13
thom wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, 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.

I'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.

If I know anything about capitalism, the primary reason manhole covers are round is because that's the most cost-efficient shape for the job.

Re: If Richard Feynman applied for a job at Microsoft (2002)

#74

Post by goodcanadian »

RHSeeger wrote: post #44
csells wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It 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. : )

You 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

If 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.

Re: If Richard Feynman applied for a job at Microsoft (2002)

#76

Post by babelfish »

gorwell wrote: post #68

It 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.

What are you talking about?

Re: If Richard Feynman applied for a job at Microsoft (2002)

#77

Post by jandrese »

janeroe wrote: post #61
Qw3r7 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably not, but he could sleep with his bosses wife

Why 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-Frontier...

He 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.

Re: If Richard Feynman applied for a job at Microsoft (2002)

#78

Post by pedrosorio »

seiferteric wrote: post #50
adflux wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is essentially the Monty Hall problem. First choice is 1/3d to be correct, if this choice is wrong, then change, because you will now improve your odds to be 1/2

Maybe I am misunderstanding but the question says NONE of the labels are correct right? If so, I was thinking of it this way. If you press coke, it can only be random or Pepsi (.25?), if you press Pepsi, it can only be coke or random (.75?), if you press random it can only be coke or Pepsi (.5) (oddly this is still random 50/50 :) ). So the optimal on first try would be to press Pepsi?

And if that first press fails, the Pepsi label must be the Random button, so you should press the button with the Random label as it is guaranteed to be the Coke button.

Re: If Richard Feynman applied for a job at Microsoft (2002)

#79

Post by jfengel »

ThePadawan wrote: post #38
cacois wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You 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 (leadin…

I 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'…

Just 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.

Re: If Richard Feynman applied for a job at Microsoft (2002)

#80

Post by goodcanadian »

hungryforcodes wrote: post #7

I've read it before, but it's always such a fun read. The author got Feynman's speaking style down perfectly.

Well, 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.

Post reply on HN