Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google was well known for logic brain teasers like that in years past - there was a time when Google recruitment was defined by such questions. They've since stopped, and sadly it looks like Microsoft has taken up the mantle for stupid irrelevant logic questions.
retaken , perhaps.
No, I still don't want to work for Google
131–140 of 410 posts
Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google
#132Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they're not real logic questions and they don't predict anything. It's about the same as judging someone's programming/design/writing/etc. ability by making them do crossword puzzles or Sudoku. The LSAT is filled with logic games, and they are nothing like a silly question like, "how many golf balls could you fit on a bus." They are actual logic questions that have a definitive answer that tests your reasonin…
> a silly question like, "how many golf balls could you fit on a bus." Why is it a silly question?
First, it assumes familiarity with golf balls. I have friends who grew up in Manhattan who have never seen a golf ball. They may have seen one on TV, but that doesn't let you really gauge the size of something.
Second, it assumes familiarity with buses, and assumes the interviewer and the interviewee are talking about the same kind of bus. Are we talking about a school bus or a big-city reticulated bus?
Third, it tests skills you're not testing. I live in the city and take the bus all the time, and I don't know whether a bus is 20 feet long or 70 feet long. I'm not good at visually estimating measurements. That might be a skill relevant to a carpenter, but not so much to a programmer. Even if you assume you have the measurements, then you also have to visualize the packing structure of the golf balls. This also tests spatial skills, which are arguably not highly relevant to a programmer.
Brain teasers are generally stupid because they are under formalized. I agree with the poster above. If you want to test logical skills, give someone a section of the logical reasoning section of the LSAT. Those questions were carefully designed to test logical reasoning and to avoid testing other things.
Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google
#134I may be making the problem worse but both this post and the comments section are some of the worst I've seen on HN -- from linkbaity title to incorrect possessive pronouns (I barely speak English and caught it while skimming), and then the deep analysis of anonymity on G+ completely based on one or two anecdotes with no relation to G+, anonymity, or even the Internet. Why is this submission at 80 upvotes? What value…
Some of what Google does is tech industry gospel - for example things like technical interviews. When there's faults with it, that's relevant to my interests, as I might want to avoid their mistakes at my own company. That's why I found the article interesting, at any rate.
Same here, except that is why I found the article to be a crappy, linkbait, waste of time. It wasn't about mistakes in google's hiring process, it was a personal rant about what the author dislikes about google.
Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they're not real logic questions and they don't predict anything. It's about the same as judging someone's programming/design/writing/etc. ability by making them do crossword puzzles or Sudoku. The LSAT is filled with logic games, and they are nothing like a silly question like, "how many golf balls could you fit on a bus." They are actual logic questions that have a definitive answer that tests your reasonin…
> a silly question like, "how many golf balls could you fit on a bus." Why is it a silly question?
It's an analysis of four things: How an applicant socially responds to ridiculous requests outside their previous experience, and how they handle initiating and architecting a "large" engineering project from a vague request, how mathematically well educated an applicant is, and how wide the knowledge level of the applicant extends (basically a psuedo IQ test, with all the legal risks that implies).
This is vitally important for a handful of positions, but a complete waste of time for most positions, thus silly.
Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regarding the car insurance: This is happening to an extent in the US currently. There are several companies who offer discounted rates for attaching 'trackers' to your car that report your driving behavior back to the insurance company. I have very real concerns that this will grow to becoming as mandatory as requiring seat belts while driving. I'm sort of mixed on this point because, while this is obviously a very…
The biggest issue I have with said trackers is that they don't allow for judgement calls. Recently for example I was travelling from Arizona back to my home in Colorado, and was on several single lane highways. The speed limit is set at 65 Mph, however you have some people that choose to drive under the speed limit at 60 Mph. To pass those people you need to speed up, enter the opposite lane of travel, pass the perso…
The pragmatist in me says that because passing on the left is often legal, surely they have some way to identify that, or at least accept it as a deviation from the mean which they would discard.
The cynic in me though believes it exactly as you suggested, that every time you break the speed limit gets added as a 'point' against your record, and enough points eventually causes your premiums to go up.
Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's actually in the post: "If you are a Google recruiter, and you want me to interview for SWE or SRE or any role that has an algorithm pop quiz as part of the interview, [...]" I was asked about algorithms for my internal reinterview to transfer from SRE (O ladder) to SWE (T ladder) in 2010. It was the usual sorting algorithm complexity stuff. That's never been my strong suit, and I'm sure I disappointed the inte…
She links to to an article that propagates said myth. Click on "arbitrary technical puzzles".
Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google
#138Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're assuming that you can write what you want and get away with it, now and in the future. But Histoy has shown that anyone can be in danger because of something they wrote long ago. The easy rule of thumb: if you have opinions and want to post them online, be prepared to lose friends, miss job opportunities and go to prison for them, even if they're not illegal or controversial right now.
People like you scare me, because you are so ignorant of history. While we might be heading towards a uber-PC socialist nightmare, one could argue just as easily that we'll end up in a hell like fascist Italy, where leftists were rounded up and shot for their opinions. You also scare me because you are so sure that you're right, and those that disagree with you are not just wrong, but evil. I disagree with you, but I…
Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google was well known for logic brain teasers like that in years past - there was a time when Google recruitment was defined by such questions. They've since stopped, and sadly it looks like Microsoft has taken up the mantle for stupid irrelevant logic questions.
Were they well known for it because they did it, or because people assumed they did it? An awful lot of people immediately jump to "stupid brain teasers" when hearing "they ask technical questions". I have people write code and solve actual problems during interviews, and have gotten several "these kinds of riddles are a waste of time" responses from people who are offended by the notion that I want them to be compet…
e.g., "3 light bulbs in a room" and "family crossing the bridge" being the classic examples.