The 9 Oddest Tech Job Interview Questions of 2011

[hellokeith]

Sorry if I missed it, but I did not see anyone mention the volume of the anchor. A very large - but only slightly denser than water - anchor could displace more water in the water vs. in the boat.

 

[robble]

Sorry if I missed it, but I did not see anyone mention the volume of the anchor. A very large - but only slightly denser than water - anchor could displace more water in the water vs. in the boat.

no, If it's volume displaced more water while in the water than it did in the boat, it would float.

 

[Whatsisname]

negative.

Sorry if I missed it, but I did not see anyone mention the volume of the anchor. A very large - but only slightly denser than water - anchor could displace more water in the water vs. in the boat.

 

[hellokeith]

no, If it's volume displaced more water while in the water than it did in the boat, it would float.

Can you provide a proof for that? I'm not trying to argue, I am honestly curious.

A 25lb iron dumbell and a 25lb iron bench-press weight have different volumes, but both have the same mass and will assuredly sink. Each has the same downward force while inside the boat, but different water displacement outside the boat.

 

[BrooksyX]

I don't remember exactly what they were but I interviewed with foster farms IS department at my college career with their CIO in the fall and he asked me some odd questions. I only hope that some day I can be on the other side asking the odd, thought provoking questions.

 

[robble]

Can you provide a proof for that? I'm not trying to argue, I am honestly curious.

A 25lb iron dumbell and a 25lb iron bench-press weight have different volumes, but both have the same mass and will assuredly sink. Each has the same downward force while inside the boat, but different water displacement outside the boat.

However, if you had a scale sitting on the bottom and weighed each of them the scale would read different weights depending on how much volume of water they displaced.

remember water has weight. once the weight of water (directly proportional to the volume) displaced is greater than the weight of the object, the object will float.

 

[mat9v]

About 4 and 7 minutes timers:
@0: flip both timers
@4: flip 4 minutes one
@7: flip both timers (you have 1 minute left on the 4 minutes one)
@8: flip both timers (you just got one minute of sand in the 7 minutes one and run out of sand in 4 minutes one)
@9: you just run out of sand in 7 minutes one

Don't know if that's the simplest one

 

[goodcooper]

assuming the floor is 51, a worse case senario...

if 50 breaks (no)
if 75 breaks (yes)
if 62 breaks (yes)
if 56 breaks (yes)
if 53 breaks (yes)
if 51 breaks (no)
if 52 breaks (yes)
answer is 51

and you've only broken 5 bulbs

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Sorry if I missed it, but I did not see anyone mention the volume of the anchor. A very large - but only slightly denser than water - anchor could displace more water in the water vs. in the boat.

Nope.

The fact that it sinks all the way to the bottom means that it is denser than water. If it is denser than water then it weighs more than water per unit volume.

it if weighs more than water per unit volume then it will - when helped by the buoyant boat be able to displace its amount of water by weight. Due to it being denser that water, this will always be a larger volume of water than its own volume, which is what it would displace if fully submerged in the water.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Can you provide a proof for that? I'm not trying to argue, I am honestly curious.

A 25lb iron dumbell and a 25lb iron bench-press weight have different volumes, but both have the same mass and will assuredly sink. Each has the same downward force while inside the boat, but different water displacement outside the boat.

Buoyancy is determined completely based on density. If something is less dense than water overall, it will float. If something is more dense than water overall it will sink.

In your example above The water would rise more with the dumbbell than with the bench press, but both would rise.

 

[Whatsisname]

The water level will drop when things are tossed out of the boat, not rise.

Additionally, in his example, there would be negligible difference because if both items are iron, as he specified, then both will have the same volume.

Buoyancy is determined completely based on density. If something is less dense than water overall, it will float. If something is more dense than water overall it will sink.

In your example above The water would rise more with the dumbbell than with the bench press, but both would rise.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

The water level will drop when things are tossed out of the boat, not rise.

Additionally, in his example, there would be negligible difference because if both items are iron, as he specified, then both will have the same volume.

'm sorry, yes, the water will drop, as I stated in this post earlier. I think i was just typing too fast

As far as both items having no difference, I've seen dumbbells and barbells with weights. The barbells are almost always larger, so I have to assume they are made differently with different materials causing different densities.

 

[stevedave]

you can test the water thing very easy.

Take a large glass bowl fill it with water then put a smaller bowl filled with just enough pennies that it still floats and stick it in the water. Mark the spot then take the pennies out of the bowl and drop them in the water.

 

[hellokeith]

Additionally, in his example, there would be negligible difference because if both items are iron, as he specified, then both will have the same volume.

Incorrect. One object has more surface area, and thus a different volume. Mass is the same.

I need to find a fish tank so I can do this experiment myself.

 

[Zangmonkey]

Incorrect. One object has more surface area, and thus a different volume. Mass is the same.

I need to find a fish tank so I can do this experiment myself.

No.
Different surface area does not imply different volume.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Incorrect. One object has more surface area, and thus a different volume. Mass is the same.

I need to find a fish tank so I can do this experiment myself.

Surface area and volume are not necessarily related.

Take the example of a heatsink. TONS of surface area, not so much volume.

What matters - in this case - is the material's density, or in other words its mass per unit volume.

 

[Zangmonkey]

Surface area and volume are not necessarily related.

Take the example of a heatsink. TONS of surface area, not so much volume.

What matters - in this case - is the material's density, or in other words its mass per unit volume.

What is the volume of a Klein bottle?

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

What is the volume of a Klein bottle?

No idea. I am an engineer, and as such I deal with useful real world scientific applications, not abstract impractical mathematical concepts

 

[Whatsisname]

surface area and volume are completely unrelated.

Due to its high degree of microporosity, just 1 gram of activated carbon has a surface area in excess of 500 m2 (about one tenth the size of a football field), as determined typically by nitrogen gas absorption.

Incorrect. One object has more surface area, and thus a different volume. Mass is the same.

I need to find a fish tank so I can do this experiment myself.

 

[Thuleman]

I'd love to get the "How would you cure world hunger?" question in an interview!
Everyone assumes that curing world hunger is the right thing to do because "think of the children!", but in reality world hunger is just one more way of nature to keep population under control and our interference with hunger and disease (i.e. Malaria) is what fucks this planet up.

No, I am not a tree hugger, and I would love to give an employer a utilitarian view of world hunger, I wouldn't even care about the job, it would just be pure gold to see their faces!

 

[stevedave]

I'd love to get the "How would you cure world hunger?" question in an interview!
Everyone assumes that curing world hunger is the right thing to do because "think of the children!", but in reality world hunger is just one more way of nature to keep population under control and our interference with hunger and disease (i.e. Malaria) is what fucks this planet up.

No, I am not a tree hugger, and I would love to give an employer a utilitarian view of world hunger, I wouldn't even care about the job, it would just be pure gold to see their faces!

Well there is no cure against hunger aside from death because hunger never goes away. You may treat the symptoms of hunger with food but you'll never cure it. If I was asked this question I'd answer kill all that hungers and then ask for a better question.

 

[Whatsisname]

not necessarily.

It's quite possible if the entire world was industrialized, that "world hunger" would be a thing of the past. We already, today, produce more than enough food to feed the whole human population.

Well there is no cure against hunger aside from death because hunger never goes away. You may treat the symptoms of hunger with food but you'll never cure it. If I was asked this question I'd answer kill all that hungers and then ask for a better question.

 

[stevedave]

not necessarily.

It's quite possible if the entire world was industrialized, that "world hunger" would be a thing of the past. We already, today, produce more than enough food to feed the whole human population.

Starvation and malnutrition will be a thing of the past but hunger will always be present. And this is just assuming you are only talking about humans because animals, tree's, Viruses, ect.... all have hunger as well.

the point of a question like this is just to see how you reason and think. They would know very quickly that I am a very literal person which may or may not be good for that position.

 

[Thuleman]

It's quite possible if the entire world was industrialized, that "world hunger" would be a thing of the past. We already, today, produce more than enough food to feed the whole human population.

Your answer is incorrect although that is not surprising because of the money that is being spend on telling people what is and what isn't food.

The reality is that most food that is mass produced today (which is the food that would be used to feed all the folks who are starving) has very little in common with foods we (humans) ate not even some 50 years ago.

Let's start by saying that grain is not something humans are meant to eat. If you look at evolution and how our digestive system works on a chemical basis then you will find that humans are not made to digest grain based foods, or to take this argument further, humans aren't built to digest complex carbohydrates.

This is because back in the day humans were for the lack of a better term nomadic. We simply didn't stick around long enough to plan, tend to, and harvest grains. That's a new food for humans and evolution hasn't caught up to our chemistry being compatible with grains.

I don't mean this in some sort of crazy Atkins diet or some similar way, but grains are literally killing us and there is so much money being made selling grains that they are paying off the government to promote grain consumption (old food pyramid anyone? new one isn't that much better).

For those who are interested, PM me and I'll suggest some further reading on this, suffice to say that we are only producing enough food to feed everyone if we are using grains and grains are not a good solution at all.

 

[beowulf7]

A correct, but probably not legally, morally, and ethically best, answer to cure world hunger, as I mentioned in my 1st post of this thread, is to kill off the hungry. Problem solved.

But that answer probably wouldn't get me the job.

 

[H-street]

Cure for World Hunger == Guns, lots of Guns

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Your answer is incorrect although that is not surprising because of the money that is being spend on telling people what is and what isn't food.

The reality is that most food that is mass produced today (which is the food that would be used to feed all the folks who are starving) has very little in common with foods we (humans) ate not even some 50 years ago.

Let's start by saying that grain is not something humans are meant to eat. If you look at evolution and how our digestive system works on a chemical basis then you will find that humans are not made to digest grain based foods, or to take this argument further, humans aren't built to digest complex carbohydrates.

This is because back in the day humans were for the lack of a better term nomadic. We simply didn't stick around long enough to plan, tend to, and harvest grains. That's a new food for humans and evolution hasn't caught up to our chemistry being compatible with grains.

I don't mean this in some sort of crazy Atkins diet or some similar way, but grains are literally killing us and there is so much money being made selling grains that they are paying off the government to promote grain consumption (old food pyramid anyone? new one isn't that much better).

For those who are interested, PM me and I'll suggest some further reading on this, suffice to say that we are only producing enough food to feed everyone if we are using grains and grains are not a good solution at all.

Crazy talk.

Just because our nomadic ancestors didn't eat grains doesn't mean our bodies can't properly digest them.

Grains are an important part of a healthy human diet. Many of us eat WAY too many simple carbohydrates but that's another story.

If you actually believe any of this crazy pop-science bullshit that's being published then you really ought to commit yourself to a psychiatric ward.

A healthy human diet is one that consists mostly of vegetables, followed by grains, and very little meats.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Crazy talk.

Just because our nomadic ancestors didn't eat grains doesn't mean our bodies can't properly digest them.

Grains are an important part of a healthy human diet. Many of us eat WAY too many simple carbohydrates but that's another story.

If you actually believe any of this crazy pop-science bullshit that's being published then you really ought to commit yourself to a psychiatric ward.

A healthy human diet is one that consists mostly of vegetables, followed by grains, and very little meats.

The only problem with grains today is that we eat too many refined grains. Whole grains are the solution.

 

[heatlesssun]

The only problem with grains today is that we eat too many refined grains. Whole grains are the solution.

Indeed, whole grains are in almost every way superior except taste, the problem with eating healthy is pretty much all about taste. It's almost like a sick joke, if healthy eating where are pleasurable as unhealthy eating life expectancies in the developed world would explode.

 

[beowulf7]

I read something silly in Maxim mag. that may be a funny question to ask an interviewee.
Q. What side of a duck has the most feathers?











A: The outside!

 

[Magnus]

Indeed, whole grains are in almost every way superior except taste, the problem with eating healthy is pretty much all about taste. It's almost like a sick joke, if healthy eating where are pleasurable as unhealthy eating life expectancies in the developed world would explode.

As a professional Chef, I contend that taste is not inherent, it is learned. Too many people have trained themselves to like over processed foods. That coupled with the many people who would willingly take a pill that met all their nutritional needs and kept them from being hungry, makes for a grim future. Thank God for the 10% who believe the pleasure of eating and sharing meals is important to being human!

 

[elm669]

Your answer is incorrect although that is not surprising because of the money that is being spend on telling people what is and what isn't food.

The reality is that most food that is mass produced today (which is the food that would be used to feed all the folks who are starving) has very little in common with foods we (humans) ate not even some 50 years ago.

Let's start by saying that grain is not something humans are meant to eat. If you look at evolution and how our digestive system works on a chemical basis then you will find that humans are not made to digest grain based foods, or to take this argument further, humans aren't built to digest complex carbohydrates.

This is because back in the day humans were for the lack of a better term nomadic. We simply didn't stick around long enough to plan, tend to, and harvest grains. That's a new food for humans and evolution hasn't caught up to our chemistry being compatible with grains.

I don't mean this in some sort of crazy Atkins diet or some similar way, but grains are literally killing us and there is so much money being made selling grains that they are paying off the government to promote grain consumption (old food pyramid anyone? new one isn't that much better).

For those who are interested, PM me and I'll suggest some further reading on this, suffice to say that we are only producing enough food to feed everyone if we are using grains and grains are not a good solution at all.

This a million times over, I cut out all sugar, carbs and starches and have lost 40lbs in the last month and a half and feel soo much better. My energy levels are constant reliable and have noticed a drop in blood sugar from elevated to normal levels as well.

Crazy talk.

Just because our nomadic ancestors didn't eat grains doesn't mean our bodies can't properly digest them.

Grains are an important part of a healthy human diet. Many of us eat WAY too many simple carbohydrates but that's another story.

If you actually believe any of this crazy pop-science bullshit that's being published then you really ought to commit yourself to a psychiatric ward.

A healthy human diet is one that consists mostly of vegetables, followed by grains, and very little meats.

WHY do we need grains? what in grains is ESSENTIAL for survival.. vitamins.. nope.. minerals.. nope, everything your body needs can be acquired elsewhere. Grains are simply a cheap filler food from the advent of the agricultural era.
My suggestion is to go look up the Ketogenic diet, ketosis, , how and why it works will be a eye opener, understanding the effects of grains, starches and sugar on the body and its ties to diabetes and high blood sugar and many other diseases.. it will give you a good understanding of how so many people in this country have become obese from eating way to much sugar, bread and starches/root veggies and not eating enough meat, green veggies, cheeses and nuts. Another really good source of info on it is r/keto the FAQ and other pages have an immense amount of info. This one is good as well in a "tell me like im 5 way"
Two really good books on the subject as well: Why we get fat and Good Calories, Bad calories

 

[Whatsisname]

even if I take everything you say as fact, it doesn't at all disprove my claim.

Just because grains are shit doesn't mean they couldn't be used to feed the world. They are already feeding the 1st world nations.

Your answer is incorrect although that is not surprising because of the money that is being spend on telling people what is and what isn't food.

The reality is that most food that is mass produced today (which is the food that would be used to feed all the folks who are starving) has very little in common with foods we (humans) ate not even some 50 years ago.

Let's start by saying that grain is not something humans are meant to eat. If you look at evolution and how our digestive system works on a chemical basis then you will find that humans are not made to digest grain based foods, or to take this argument further, humans aren't built to digest complex carbohydrates.

This is because back in the day humans were for the lack of a better term nomadic. We simply didn't stick around long enough to plan, tend to, and harvest grains. That's a new food for humans and evolution hasn't caught up to our chemistry being compatible with grains.

I don't mean this in some sort of crazy Atkins diet or some similar way, but grains are literally killing us and there is so much money being made selling grains that they are paying off the government to promote grain consumption (old food pyramid anyone? new one isn't that much better).

For those who are interested, PM me and I'll suggest some further reading on this, suffice to say that we are only producing enough food to feed everyone if we are using grains and grains are not a good solution at all.