Nice, you played the game and you earned $0.20 [twenty cents]. Definitely a bad choice. But then you got viral on HN, and made good on your investment.
[dead]
Steve Ballmer's incorrect binary search interview question
21–30 of 257 posts
Re: Steve Ballmer's incorrect binary search interview question
#22The article implies that the interviewee assumes that the number is being chosen randomly, when Ballmer could actually be choosing adversarially. However, if the interviewee assumes that Ballmer is being adversarial, then you can pick a different value as your initial guess, which causes the probabilities to shift. Even the OP assumes that the interviewee will start guessing with 50, but, because of the way binary se…
And then if Ballmer assumes the other party assumes he's being adversarial we get into game theory.
The ultimate conclusion of which is likely that both parties will decay to picking the secret value/first guess randomly (although I'm not sure if the optimal distribution is perfectly flat?), which is also something that we can model.
Re: Steve Ballmer's incorrect binary search interview question
#23I'm so glad I've managed my career such that I've never had to answer bullshit interview questions like this. The only purpose of these is to stroke the asker's ego, they tell you nothing at all about the candidate. What a waste of time.
correct answer
Re: Steve Ballmer's incorrect binary search interview question
#24The article implies that the interviewee assumes that the number is being chosen randomly, when Ballmer could actually be choosing adversarially. However, if the interviewee assumes that Ballmer is being adversarial, then you can pick a different value as your initial guess, which causes the probabilities to shift. Even the OP assumes that the interviewee will start guessing with 50, but, because of the way binary se…
And then if Ballmer assumes the other party assumes he's being adversarial we get into game theory.
The way forward is to make Ballmer pay with time for screwing with you, which gets us into geopolitics, and then using the resulting MAD dynamics to make the game fair again. That's how adults with keys to the nukes do it :).
Re: Steve Ballmer's incorrect binary search interview question
#25I have opened the article in question. I have NOT worked through the technical problem, the complications and interpretation surrounding Ballmer, nor have I digested the contention being presented. I am capable of these things but I am on the clock and I do not value performing the work required for this particular article.
With that said, I wanted to share the following. Perhaps it will spur discussion.
Our leadership -- whether in our professional circumstances, in our sovereign and communal circumstances, or in our choice to lead ourselves; perhaps it is in these leaders that a view, or a decision, or a proclamation -- perhaps it is in these impulses that the world is changed.
Can you assign truth to an impulse? Is it a communication for consideration? Is it a demand for compliance?
I assert that you can do so. The words were spoken. Thus, the impulse was true.
If you desire to do so, please consider.
Re: Steve Ballmer's incorrect binary search interview question
#26As an interviewee my first question would be – are you going to play fair, and how can I verify it?
[dead]
Re: Steve Ballmer's incorrect binary search interview question
#27The article implies that the interviewee assumes that the number is being chosen randomly, when Ballmer could actually be choosing adversarially. However, if the interviewee assumes that Ballmer is being adversarial, then you can pick a different value as your initial guess, which causes the probabilities to shift. Even the OP assumes that the interviewee will start guessing with 50, but, because of the way binary se…
And then if Ballmer assumes the other party assumes he's being adversarial we get into game theory.
I’d pay $5 to watch a short film of Ballmer asking this question to Wallace Shawn’s Vizzini.
Re: Steve Ballmer's incorrect binary search interview question
#28The article implies that the interviewee assumes that the number is being chosen randomly, when Ballmer could actually be choosing adversarially. However, if the interviewee assumes that Ballmer is being adversarial, then you can pick a different value as your initial guess, which causes the probabilities to shift. Even the OP assumes that the interviewee will start guessing with 50, but, because of the way binary se…
And then if Ballmer assumes the other party assumes he's being adversarial we get into game theory.
Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!
Re: Steve Ballmer's incorrect binary search interview question
#29"Should you accept to play this game?"
Absolutely yes. I like games. The purpose of games is to have fun. This seems like a fun game for like the first $20, a sum I can afford to play a fun game for 10 minutes.
Then at the end, I get to say "I once lost $20 to Steve Balmer playing binary search", which is a fun sentence I can dine out on, and is worth more than $20 to me.
I feel like perhaps this is why MS under Balmer lost relevance. Too busy looking at the technical and not the human.
Re: Steve Ballmer's incorrect binary search interview question
#30As with most interview questions, I’d expect this to be about how you think through it and show your work. If an interviewer asked this question and you found a mistake, that probably helps you get the job.