|
Easy: Burn the interviewer first, then fold the rope. 
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks sir,
well i told him
to measure it for half an hour, burn it from both the sides. He told me, but then nothing of that rope will be left.
I said, as it is even if you cut the rope into half nothing will be left.
He then smiled. Actually i dint understand what was the intention.
|
|
|
|
|
Where's the constraint about not being able to fold the rope?
|
|
|
|
|
I think that's the whole point - they expect you to talk about what do and how that would give the desired result - in other words its a test of your ability to reason and explain your reasoning (like so many of these wanky things).
So you could answer. fold rope in half, cut it and get two half-hour burns (ie light them simultaneously), or - as someone else said - light both ends. For the 45 mins, fold in half, fold one half in half again, then light the bend - the longer piece will burn for 45 mins, and so on.
For the smilies, it's easy to see how to move a group of 3 to swap the figure, does that count as 2+1 or 3 - you would be expected to reason that out.
I prefer to talk to someone generally about their work, get them to meet the team and talk about things they've actually done, including some technical discussion and reasons for why they took the approach they did. Simple reasoning tests like this where there is ambiguity, and where you are expected to reason about the answers have more value than many things done at interview, even though I wouldn't use them myself.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes Sir,
Thats true. Capability and knowledge is every thing. This aptitude test and all bull sh*t. And on top of that what is the need to impose a criteria like 60% and above throughout academics? Its becoming frustrating now. In one company i cleared all aptitude and technical rounds, however one person who topped throughout his academics flunked these tests. Now what can be said about this? Well i hope these practices are not followed else where.
Thanks and Regards,
Rahul.
|
|
|
|
|
Rahul,
I hope these types of tests are used everywhere. And the criteria for being in the top 60% is merely an exclusion of the BOTTOM 40%, which shows someone who did not LOVE the degree, in my book.
And the Guy who did GREAT in school, and FAILED these tests is WHY they (we) give such tests. It is the opposite of working the system. All school tests are solvable. Not all problems in real life are. We need people who can figure that portion out... They have to know what they don't know, or realize they cannot solve the problem BEFORE they just start banging out code.
I use tests like these. Even worse... How many molecules of rubber comes off a tire in a single rotation, under normal wear conditions? If the person studied a lot of physics: If I push a fudge brownie out into space from the MIR space station. Will it explode/implode? Please explain?
To be clear, what I am looking for has NOTHING to do with the answer. It has to do with the reasoning, and their reactions to the question, and their follow-up questions.
Honestly, put yourself in their shoes. If you had 1,000 people to interview for 100 positions, and you wanted to hire the types of people who are going to do the best... How would you decide that?
- Personality? (doesn't work)
- Dress? (hardly?)
- Experience (maybe, but if you have 10:1, you probably pay on the low side, and you should, for the new people. Give me someone who wants a chance to prove themselves and have shown this during school)
It is a simple optimization, and a requirement to optimize. Interviewing takes time and costs money.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Sir,
I completely understand what you want to say. I also understand that you are one of the recruiters. I have nothing against these tests. Its just my frustration. I understand the importance of these questions. and speaking about
Quote: And the criteria for being in the top 60% is merely an exclusion of the BOTTOM 40%
and it may also happen that due to bad fate or some family problem or something else, that student might have not performed in his academics, this doesnt mean that he dint respect his degree. You cant take away good and bad fate away from people.
These few people in top 60% are not able to debug something like below scenarios
1)string s="1,2,3,4,5";
s.split(',')[0];
2) Object reference not set to an instance of an object.
What they do is operate on thousands of variables. Throughout their academics the simply mug up the entire book. They have 100% attendance. So they get good internal marks. This is what brings them to 60% throughout.
I completely understand that there are 1000's of candidates and very few to interview and seal the position. Its just that : i just hope that you dont relate marks with intelligence,knowledge and capability. It might happen that in the bottom 40% that you left out might be a promising candidate.
One of my friends flunked an year due to bad fate. Now he is one of the best Dot Net architects i have ever met.
Today's generation dont want knowledge, they just want money, no one is willing to learn. They just want a good package. It is all because of this stupid education system today people lack knowledge.
And yes i understand everything and agree to what ever you said. But i just want to say never let go of a promising candidate. Ok now tell me a person has scored 60% throughout passes the interview, but fails to perform now what will you do? His marksheet, degree, etc all is a waste.
With due respect Sir, i just want to say , my aim here is not to oppose you or to fight with you. But please read the comments of Original Griff(MVP since many years and many people. You will come to know what we are saying please read other comments also. I hope you will realize the importance of an MVP title.) Not judging a person based on his knowledge and capability and taking into consideration his marks is not correct.
I understand optimizing is important, but sometimes there is a wrong optimization. Lastly i just want to say, i apologize if whatever i say has hurt you or i apologize if i was rude. Its just a difference of opinion nothing else. I request you to consider this discussion in a sporty way.
Thanks and Regards,
Rahul
|
|
|
|
|
Rahul,
Nothing you said should offend me. When I go to the market for fresh fruit, I DO NOT look at EVERY piece of fruit. I do not look at the bad ones. Once I find what I need, I stop. Will I leave BETTER fruit behind? CERTAINLY.
I was giving you the OTHER SIDE of the story, because WHEN (not if, as I wish) I make a bad hiring decision, the cost is QUITE HIGH. It typically takes 60 days to realize it. That is 2 months of WASTED salary + 2 months of WASTED training + 2 months of LOST opportunity. Oh, BTW, my rule of thumb is a new hire costs 6 months, because it takes those 2 months and other peoples time to get them up to speed. So now it will cost me 1yr of someones salary EVERY TIME I am wrong. For that price, I MUST try not to be wrong. I must play the odds...
Now, there are 3 things YOU should do:
1) Change the conversation. If your OVERALL grades < 60%, maybe you have 90% in your major? Push that!
2) Show up with REAL LIFE examples of work. I got my first programming job at 18. My boss took a risk, but I took a low salary and EXCEEDED his expectations. But I also had excellent references, and I brought with me work in 3 different languages on the machines (PDP-11s) he was using.
3) Do Something. Publish Something. Make something useful. Make Flippy Bird II, the flight of the finger... (pun is intended)... Find out what they are doing, and do something related.
At the same time that I use filters, I will interview ANYONE willing to be put through it, if they show enough initiative... Yes, book smarts alone is not good enough.
Just don't hate the process!
When I start hiring, I get ready for the following:
- Idiots who have typos on their resume
- People who call when an ad says Do not call (I use a pseudonym so the calls get blocked)
- About as many Head Hunters as actual prospects will reach out to me (for MONTHS filling the position)
- People who will claim to be self-starters that "need" a team to work on
- People who outright lie about their skills
- People who have certifications that don't know anything useful
But it is not personal. I sort the resumes into piles:
- Experience and Education
- Just Experience (no formal education)
- Just Education (recent graduates, etc)
- No Experience or Education
- No Clue, errors, wrong job, etc
I start calling from the first Pile. The second and third are only used if I see something I like...
Anyways, I wish you luck. And BTW, one of my favorite ANSI C questions was the result of:
{
int x;
int z[5];
3[z] = 19;
x = 2[z+1];
}
// Will it compile/work? What will be the value of x?
Honestly, I would ONLY ask that question if the interviewee said that their 5+ yrs of C made them an expert at the C language...
|
|
|
|
|
Respected Sir,
If according to you i am that fruit in the market which you wont look upon, thats ok. With due respect i dont and i wont hate the hiring process. I again apologize for my language(if it hurt you). I respect every senior person in the industry and you are a senior so i respect you too. And yes i understood the other side of the story. It was nice speaking to you. I will look forward to learn many things from you.
Thanks and Regards,
Rahul
|
|
|
|
|
Next time ask whether there is enough to hang yourself.
Questions like this achieve f### all IMHO. Those who answer them can be clueless when it comes to what is really required of them
|
|
|
|
|
Try this "How many interview questions does it take to make a piece of software that works?".
Peter Wasser
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
Now thats a good one.
|
|
|
|
|
It's the journey, not the destination.
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually for the second item, move 2 items from line 4 (the two at right) to line 2.
Then move the line 1 to line "5". You will actually create a new line but, as the only thing that matters is the "triangle" you will solve the problem.
But the item 1 is pretty problematic. Actually, fire is only an example or we should use fire? After all, the text says "we can only measure using time" but the example uses time + fire. So, could we use water? Acid? Or other things? Or can we only use fire + time?
And what measure the rope for half an hour means? Is the purpose to measure the same rope using half time?
Because if the idea is to measure the rope for a maximum of half an hour, well, extinguish the fire after half an hour (using water, hehe). After 45 minutes? Extinguish the fire after 45 minutes... Actually I don't know if this is a translation problem, but as it looks, I could simply measure the same rope but, for some reason, stop measuring before it is entirely destroyed.
If we actually have ropes of the same size and we do the tests in order, we could:
Start the fire at both places on the second case.
Start the fire on one side, wait 15 minutes and start the fire on the other side. If we actually know how much time it takes for the entire rope (nothing is saying me we don't know) we can do that "trick" to achieve the right value... but in that case we already have the result of a previous measure.
Note: I am not saying to fold the rope as I already saw in the messages that such thing is not allowed.
|
|
|
|
|
1) Since you already know how long the rope is going to burn, what is there left to measure? And anyway, since you're burning the rope - what is the point of measuring it? 
2) I don't see the difference between 3 or 2+1 or 1+1+1. Maybe your description of the problem is lacking some side conditions, or is inaccurate? Maybe you should view the problem at a different angle - say 90 degrees 
|
|
|
|
|
On a more serious note: as incomplete and nonsensical as these questions seem, client specifications for a project are typically just as incomplete and nonsensical. Maybe the point of these questions was to query for more specific information to the point where the problem is sufficiently specified to actually come up with a solution?
|
|
|
|
|
Burning the rope is just an example of how you use time to measure it, not the only way permitted.
If you can measure time accurately in this experiment (which they don't specify) you could, for instance, test how far a shadow moves over it in an hour. With a bit of maths you can then angle it so that it takes an hour for a shadow to move from end to end, after which you can measure a quarter by checking where the shadow gets to after 15 mins. You'd have to do each round of testing at the same time of day but so what, it's not a real situation anyway.
Regards
Nelviticus
|
|
|
|
|
1) If all you can measure is time, climb a tower or building higher than the rope is long, hold the rope on one end, letting the other dangle down. Then let it drop and measure the time it takes until the far end hits the pavement. Then drop something small to take the time it takes to drop from the current height. From the latter you can determine the current height, from the former you can determine the drop height of the far end. The difference between the two heights is the rope length. (note: height is 1/2*a*t^2, where a is ~9.81m/s^2 and t is the time you measured)
You just need a sufficiently accurate stop watch and an accurate way to measure the moment the end of the rope hits the bottom (photo sensor should do)
When you're done, tell the client the length and sell the rope: if burning it is ok, then why would the client expect to get it returned? 
And don't tell me I can't use gravity! 
|
|
|
|
|
Actually the 1st is a bit of a trick question. The hint is in this line:
Rahul VB wrote: For example i set it on fire and the rope burns for one hour.
Did he actually state that the rope is 1 hour long and you must then divide it into a half hour- and another into a 3/4 hour rope?
I think this question is meant to find out how you read a problem. E.g. your measuring tool is time. And all you're being asked is to measure a rope of 30 min "long" and another of 45 min "long" ... i.e. start burning the rope while you start the measurement (i.e. something like a stopwatch). Then snuff the burning rope once it's reached the time indicated.
Now if you're required to end with a rope the same length as the specified time, you'd need at least 2 ropes (equal lengths) to achieve this. E.g. time how long the 1st burns, subtract the required left over rope from that time then burn the 2nd for that amount and snuff it.
|
|
|
|
|
Alternative to this (as others have mentioned) what if burning the rope is not necessarily the means of measuring it against time? Though here I might have to query on the translation, e.g. if the word rope is replaced with fuse the burning at a specified time interval makes a lot more sense than with a "rope".
Also, are you allowed to "invent" (or rather deduce) a new measurement from a sample? E.g. take a single rope, measure it using some other means (e.g. using a stick you picked up). Then time how long it takes to burn it. Then you can use maths to use the stick as non-destructive measure on other ropes.
And then, if the interviewer keeps giving you restrictions which void your answers. E.g. using mine above he then states: But you don't have 2 ropes. Or it's impossible to snuff. Etc. etc. ... that probably means he's actually testing your willingness to continue problem solving and how you react under pressure.
|
|
|
|
|
"Now i want to measure the rope for half an hour what to do?"
You burn it from both ends 
They really will end up with expert pyromaniacs in that company.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
For 45 minutes, start fire at the 3/4 location. The question was not clearly defined purposely. Therefore, there is no definitive answer.
TOMZ_KV
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fire is just an example of one way of measuring the length of the rope.
So for example, tie one end of the rope to a tree and walk away for an hour... how long is the rope - ones hours length of walking long.
Go back to the tree and do the same for 30 minutes and 45 minutes, you've got 3 measurements.
It's a silly question, so I think silly answers are only fair.
|
|
|
|
|
This is the only answer that makes sense to me so far. You can measure pretty much any length multiple times this way. I think it is cool.
I would imagine if you could understand Morse Code, a tap dancer would drive you crazy.
[Mitch Hedberg (American Comedian, 1968-2005)]
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
