Trepidati0n
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2004
- Messages
- 9,269
The answer is 3. Everyone concur?
No, the answer is "not enough, your wife is making you sleep on the couch for being a cheap SOB".
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The answer is 3. Everyone concur?
No, the answer is "not enough, your wife is making you sleep on the couch for being a cheap SOB".
You fail.
Are there any scenarios you can think of in which you *are not* in second place?
Depends what time frame we're looking at. Since you said 'just passed' we can assume that it's in the instantaneous moment you pass second place. Since D(distance from second place car)/Dtime > 0 when we take an infinitesimal time-slice after getting level with the second place car we can deduce that we're now in second place.
We cannot be in first place. Why?
It would require the first two cars to be dead-level with each other. If they were, there would no longer be a 'second place' car but instead two 'joint first places'.
If, however, you didn't mean 'just passed' then you could be in first place, but since you stated the time interval it's not possible.
If the then-2nd place car was tied with the 1st place car, then sure, you'd be in first place since you overtook both. But your question didn't imply that since you said "just passed the 2nd place car". I think your boss is looking for people to give the knee-jerk reaction of "1st place", which would be incorrect.You fail.
Are there any scenarios you can think of in which you *are not* in second place?
Then in that case, the 2nd place car would've passed you, not the other way around, right?All that is perfectly reasonable except for one thing. The English language is a slippery slope and having "just passed the car in second place," he could be in third.
Depends what time frame we're looking at. Since you said 'just passed' we can assume that it's in the instantaneous moment you pass second place. Since D(distance from second place car)/Dtime > 0 when we take an infinitesimal time-slice after getting level with the second place car we can deduce that we're now in second place.
We cannot be in first place. Why?
It would require the first two cars to be dead-level with each other. If they were, there would no longer be a 'second place' car but instead two 'joint first places'.
If, however, you didn't mean 'just passed' then you could be in first place, but since you stated the time interval it's not possible.
If the then-2nd place car was tied with the 1st place car, then sure, you'd be in first place since you overtook both. But your question didn't imply that since you said "just passed the 2nd place car". I think your boss is looking for people to give the knee-jerk reaction of "1st place", which would be incorrect.
Depends what time frame we're looking at. Since you said 'just passed' we can assume that it's in the instantaneous moment you pass second place. Since D(distance from second place car)/Dtime > 0 when we take an infinitesimal time-slice after getting level with the second place car we can deduce that we're now in second place.
We cannot be in first place. Why?
It would require the first two cars to be dead-level with each other. If they were, there would no longer be a 'second place' car but instead two 'joint first places'.
If, however, you didn't mean 'just passed' then you could be in first place, but since you stated the time interval it's not possible.
Then that would be a poorly worded question b/c the purpose of these questions is not to have the interviewee come back and ask for a ton of details such as "Is it a straight-line race or on an oval track containing multiple laps to complete the race?" and so on.False.
We're looking for knee-jerk reactions in general.
What if you were the first place car already and you were lapping the second place car?
What if you had been lapped by the second place car and were passing it again?
Then that would be a poorly worded question b/c the purpose of these questions is not to have the interviewee come back and ask for a ton of details such as "Is it a straight-line race or on an oval track containing multiple laps to complete the race?" and so on.
Then that would be a poorly worded question b/c the purpose of these questions is not to have the interviewee come back and ask for a ton of details such as "Is it a straight-line race or on an oval track containing multiple laps to complete the race?" and so on.
Then that would be a poorly worded question b/c the purpose of these questions is not to have the interviewee come back and ask for a ton of details such as "Is it a straight-line race or on an oval track containing multiple laps to complete the race?" and so on.
no, that is exactly the point of these kinds of questions.
The saddest part about these silly kinds of questions is the number of companies who NEVER ask any kind of open ended questions.
There are 30 prisoners in a straight line facing a wall. Everybody is wearing either a black or white hat. The prisoners can only see the colors of the hats in front of them but not of the prisoners behind them. Now each prisoner has to guess the color of the hat on his own head. Guess wrong and die. Come up with a strategy so all guesses are correct.
Wouldn't it be neither? You'd be losing the downward force of gravity on the boat, which pushes down on the surface of the water, but you'd be gaining direct displacement.
Here's an old question I got asked for the planning & analysis dept of a casino company:
I failed the question, but still got hired because apparently I spoke well.
Sure, for engineering, yes, you need all that back-and-forth details. But engineering projects typically are months and years in duration. An interview is typically an hour. Going back and forth with all the Q&A for 1 question will eat up a big chunk of time.In engineering, and particularly software, the proper way to answer anything is to fully understand the question.
Otherwise you present an incomplete solution.
We are looking for the interviewee to realize they may need to ask about the requirements.
Yeah, I'm thinking that a company wants to get the biggest value for the time to see how someone thinks. Maybe not necessarily get the right answer, but show how he formulates his answer.Exactly. There are a lot of questions where the answer is some sort of 'trick' like this. It's not too helpful because the ability to come up with a solution isn't really correlated with creativity/problem solving ability. However, there is skill in avoiding the knee-jerk reaction answer; it shows that the person has the ability to weigh up circumstances and process thoughts themselves rather than simply herding with the masses.
As I mentioned to Zangmonkey, in the interest of time, it defeats the purpose to spend so much time with back-and-forth Q&A for 1 question. An interviewer will have dozens of questions he wants to ask, many of them which have "sub-questions". The last thing he wants to do is waste 5 min. or more out of an hour describing the details of 1 oddball question.no, that is exactly the point of these kinds of questions.
And since they're prisoners who have a 50% chance of dying, what motive would they have in answering accurately?As the prisoner behind you what color hat you're wearing...
Last guy in line is just out of luck
you have a bathtub full of water. I give you a spoon, a cup, and a bucket. What is the fastest way to empty the tub?
Then cannon ball into it and use the bucket to scoop as much as you can out.Zarathustra[H];1038198099 said:Pull the drain plug.
The typical question is "you have two ultra tough lightbulbs that are exactly the same. There is a 100 story building, and your job is to figure out which floor the bulbs will break from when dropped out a window."Actually, if you do a binary search, you'll find out the answer faster. That is, start from the 50th floor, then the 25th or 75th (depending on the result) and so on. Qualcomm should've made it a little more challenging by only giving bulbs.
What the hell is the solution to the 4 minute and 7 minute timers to get exactly nice minutes?
What the hell is the solution to the 4 minute and 7 minute timers to get exactly nice minutes?
run the two timers at the same time, when the 4 runs out, stop the 7
You now have a 7-minute timer with exactly 3 minutes remaining.
Reset the 4 minute times and run it along with the 7-minute timer (with 3 minutes remaining)
When time runs out, stop the 4-minute timer.
You now have a 4-minute timer with exactly 1 minute remaning.
Run this at the same time as the 7-minute timer.
You now have a 7-minute timer with exactly 6 minutes remaining
Run this with the 4-minute timer
You now have a 7-minute timer with exactly two minutes remaining
Ready?
Run this 2-minutes down, then run the 7-minute timer once more
9 minutes.
There is probably a better algorithm for this... but the approach is correct.
The question said "without the process taking longer than nine minutes" - Your process takes longer than that:
@0 - run both
@4 - rerun 4
@7 - rerun 7
@8 - rerun 4
@12 - start counting your 9 minutes
@14 - rerun 7
@21 - stop counting your 9 minutes
Then cannon ball into it and use the bucket to scoop as much as you can out.
my head hurts now.. anyone got a tylenol?
Bloody engineers! You hire two co-eds in teddy's to splash fight the water out. Nobody cares how long it takes.
Why do they have to be in teddy's, let alone anything?!?!?!
There are 30 prisoners in a straight line facing a wall. Everybody is wearing either a black or white hat. The prisoners can only see the colors of the hats in front of them but not of the prisoners behind them. Now each prisoner has to guess the color of the hat on his own head. Guess wrong and die. Come up with a strategy so all guesses are correct.
Let the guy in the back of the line answer first - he counts the number of Black vs. White hats and guesses correctly. The guy next from the last goes next - knowing how many black & white hats are in front AND the color of the guy's hat behind him when he called it out - and so on.
If the number of attempts (and therefore time) isn't an issue, then just start from floor 1 and keep working up 1 floor at a time to see at which floor the bulb breaks. Then subtract one and you found the limit.The typical question is "you have two ultra tough lightbulbs that are exactly the same. There is a 100 story building, and your job is to figure out which floor the bulbs will break from when dropped out a window."
In that case, your answer doesn't work, as you would break both bulbs.
The ideal solution isn't TechLarry's either. Spoilers follow (highlight to read easily):
In TechLarry's solution, the worst case is 19 drops. An ideal solution requires only 14 drops:
Drop from floor 14, if it breaks, then 1-13
Else, Drop from floor 27 (14+13), if it breaks, then 15-26
Else, Drop from floor 39 (14+13+12), if it breaks, then 28-38
Else, Drop from floor 50 (14+13+12+11), if it breaks, then 40-49
Else, Drop from floor 60 (14+13+12+11+10), if it breaks, then 51-59
Else, Drop from floor 69 (14+13+12+11+10+9), if it breaks, then 61-68
Else, Drop from floor 77 (14+13+12+11+10+9+8), if it breaks, then 70-76
Else, Drop from floor 84 (14+13+12+11+10+9+8+7), if it breaks, then 78-83
Else, Drop from floor 90 (14+13+12+11+10+9+8+7+6), if it breaks, then 85-89
Else, Drop from floor 95 (14+13+12+11+10+9+8+7+6+5), if it breaks, then 91-94
Else, Drop from floor 99 (14+13+12+11+10+9+8+7+6+5+4), if it breaks, then 96-98
Else, Drop from floor 100, to see if it breaks at all