What was the most ridiculous, dumb or funny question you were asked during your interview for a programming job?
Printable View
What was the most ridiculous, dumb or funny question you were asked during your interview for a programming job?
Do I ski or snowboard?
Why is that a ridiculous question?
I didn't say it was. I thought it was funny.Quote:
What was the most ridiculous, dumb or funny question...
If that question was really asked on an interview, I find that rather ridiculous. What has the fact if you ski or snowboard has to do with you being a good or bad programmer ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sahir
Maybe more than one would expect. Making software is teamwork. It is important to keep the team coherent. If all team members do snowboard but one do skiing, the coherence of team is threated. And the performance sink fall down.
Although I mean this primary as a joke, I think there is a portion of truth in it.
"What's the difference between new operator and operator new?"
Don't laugh, they had an answer. :D
Q: Have you ever written a C program for Windows?
A: Yes.
Q: What was that? "Hello World"?
A: No. It was "Hello Windows".
/I was hired. :D
:D ROTFL :D I must remember that one. ;)
"Why do you weigh less on the moon than you do on earth?"
EDIT: BTW, I aced the entire C++ interview and I still wasn't hired.
What was your anwer? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigel
I figured that since Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system and since you weigh the most on Jupiter that the answer to that question would be size. So perhaps the reason why you weigh more on one planet would be because the size of the planet was larger. He acted a little strange when presenting an argument. Something to the effect of "I could take this pen and *CRUSH IT* to the size of a millimeter ... by.... millimeter square. What are you telling me size has to do with anything??? In this case ... SIZE ....DOESN'T ....MATTER!!". - (with a Russian accent)Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc G
He told me to e-mail him when I find the answer. When I found the answer on the internet I e-mailed him and that was the end of that story. The other 3 software engineers that interviewed me said they wanted to proceed forward, however, when they checked with the VP -(the guy that asked me the above question) he said no. So I wasn't hired.
Nah, size doesn't matter in that case. For example on a neutron star which is an ultra dense star (not a black hole) you weight ten thousands of billions times more than here on earth while the entire neutron star is only like 20 miles across :eek:
btw this is an interesting site: http://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/weight/ :wave:
Right... But I looked it up on the internet and it has to do with mass. So I e-mailed him it has to do with mass. (He told me to e-mail him when I find the correct answer) And he confirmed with a follow up e-mail which said that I was correct. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc G
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass
I should study physics before an interview. :p
I was asked if I had an extra pen the interviewer could borrow. Needless to say if they're not properly prepared when they interview me its not likely they're prepared when it comes to work. I declined their offer.
i should rather study class 1oth social science subjects to clear software interview.
The people (2 of my 3 bosses) interviewing me asked me a couple of questions about the storage tanks and their content, at a gasstation I worked at while studying. :oQuote:
Originally Posted by JohnCz
More specifically if the content used for heating was the same tank as the one for diesel, because many people use the same type for both.
I felt that was wierd, but I just thought they wanted to test me to see how I'd react to strange questions.... that and of course my bosses are strange :)
I've asked someone in an interview if they like surfing, just because he lives near the beach.
I've once been told years ago to buy a "C++ for dummies" book at an interview when I got knocked back for a C++ job I applied for.
Size does matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc G
Mass also matters.
In fact, the gravity depends upon mass & distance between the ground and the gravity center of the planet (which depends on the size of the planet).
Gravity is lineary proportional to the density of the planet, and also lineary proportinal to the radius (r^3/r^2 in fact :D ), if its surface is a sphere & density is uniform.
Gravity is equal to (total mass)/(radius*radius)
So, the size matters.
Imagine a planet with the same mass than earth and with a radius equal to half of the earth radius (thus density being 8 times greater). The gravity would be 4 times the density of the earth.
And, for a given density, radius is simply, lineary proportional to the radius.
Moon has probably a different density than earth, but the rate is probably not huge. The main gravity difference is due to the difference of radius!
So, the answer "because the size is smaller" is not more wrong than "because the mass is smaller".
True, true... I was just saying that it's not always the case that a smaller sphere (planet, star) has less gravity than earth ;)
Because like you said it depends on the density which is huuuuge on a neutron start and that's why such a small neutron star has a much much greater gravity than earth.
How about this one :
"Do you have any questions you want to put to us ?"
The most awful question in every interview, and also the most pointless.
But they always, always ask it (even I do).
Also if you're still employed "why do you want to leave your current company ?"
The usual answer is something along the lines of "my career path has stalled at my present company." blah blah blah.
The truthful answer is "I'm looking for more money."
Not true with my move recently, but 99% of the time it is true.
Darwen.
I've had a guy interviewing me sit there & talk about himself for 45 minutes including how busy he always is, how he's never happy unless he is chasing a ball around a field, how much money he makes etc etc etc. This is at a first interview. I learned more about him than he did about me. (I was the interviewee)
When I was the interviewer, I had a guy jump up & lecture me in the middle of the interview using the white board & everything, it was all good except I didn't understand a word he said because he couldn't speak English very well :(
For me an interview is just as much how I would like to work for a company as it is for them to understand whether they want to employ me or not.
Working in a company where you "dont fit" is truly awful : it's best to get a good fit on both sides.
Darwen.
I am a freelancer that is why I have had many, many interviews.
I think my most ridiculous was:
How many classes do you need to build Windows application?
Since I know that whatever I answer it won’t be a good answer I said:
“On average 25.5.”
That concluded this interview.
About 2 - 3 years ago after extensive one, I was informed that I should brush my knowledge about MFC. It was a guy who did not believe me that CView is an abstract class.
Another question mentioned here is (and they know that I am freelance consultant): Why did you leave previous place?
Well, technically, they should have asked "Why do you want to leave your previous place?" that being your freelance work. ;)
I was asked what brand of beer I like once. Having lived in the area for a while, I immediately responded with one of the local brews, which I do enjoy. I was hired.
Viggy
Sounds like "How much money you need to start a business?". :pQuote:
Originally Posted by JohnCz
However, I woud like to answer "Minimum zero, either if you refer to window classes or OOP classes. For example, a WinMain function with some stuff inside but no window creation should be a perfect valid Windows application".
The question I hate the most is "Why do you want to work for us?" or "Why did you choose us?". And there's no interview without it. ;)
One of my former colleagues said "Because I saw in a picture few little cute ducks walking in your yard".Quote:
Originally Posted by cilu
He was hired (please keep this secret: at MS :D).
When you say "equal to", you must include "G" -- the gravitational constant. And when you say "Gravity" you must specify if its the "force of gravity" or the "acceleration due to gravity". So, in fact weight would be:Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperKoko
G*M*m/r^2. M = mass of the planet, m= mass of the body being weighed..
By the way, it also depends on the kind of weighing balance that you use to measure the weight - a spring balance or a beam balance... :D
Interviews really suck.. and frankly speaking i get tired of questions like:
1. Why do you want to change your job?
2. What are looking for in your new job?
3. Are you interested to work here?
I mean.. it's these guys only who go on after you searching your resume and asking you to appear... and now when you have come should automatically tell them that I am interested... but no they have to ask! I know they try analyzing your answers.. and the answers are important but still ... i consider them to be a dumb question..
Okay.. i got a good one... :D
Interviewer - Have you worked on .Net?
Me - No.
Interviewer - What have you done specifically?
Me - No, I haven't worked on the .net platform.
Interviewer - Okay <pause>, so <a longer pause>, what is a viewstate?
Me - #$@#$@%%@#@#
Another bad one, IMO, is "Where do you see yourself in N years?". In the mirror, I guess. ;)Quote:
1. Why do you want to change your job?
2. What are looking for in your new job?
3. Are you interested to work here?
Yeah... I remember what I had replied vaguely... a year and half ago... I said something like I want to be handling modules... designing ... etc etc .. like I wanted to let them know that I would like going ahead in the technical side and not just doing some team managerial stuff (which is by the way considered no less than rocket science :D ).. preparing schedules and reporting blah blah blah...Quote:
Originally Posted by cilu
The response that I got was - (from a manager) - I have been in the industry for blah number of years and i haven't got a single blah project to design... <<in a very sarcastic :rolleyes: :cool: and intimidating manner>>
It was not surprising that I felt highly sympathetic for him rather than being intimidated.... :rolleyes:
I once interviewed an applicant who listed "glass assembler" as his previous job.
I wanted to ask, but I didn't.
Glass Assembler ?
Some may not consider this a dumb questions, but I hate it:
I never know what to say, and what they are looking for.Quote:
Give an example of some difficult situation you were faced with, and how did you resolve it?
Also, what bothers me is when the interviewer (for whatever reason) is not very familiar with my resume; and has definitly not researched it too see what some techologies I've worked with are, if he/she is not familiar with what it is. For example I have C++ Linux programming experience which is stated in my resume, and I have been asked:
This was from a CS graduate at a very BIG company, who I shall not name. It is very weird and puzzling. how did I get the interview, yet my interviewer didn't know what an important part of my work experience actually was?Quote:
What's Linux?
Latem
"What are trigraphs?" That's not stupid, but usually a stupid one follows: "Please tell me exactly: how many trigraphs there are? "
Latem, I consider this a very good question...
You always face difficult situations and they want to measure your skills to handle them.. it is a more important question as and when the experience in the industry increases...Quote:
Originally Posted by Latem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigel
Actually, mass and size do matter. The sun is much more massive than earth -- so if mass alone was the answer, we'd all be sucked toward the sun. However, the force of gravity (and electomagnitism too) fall off as the inverse square of the distance to the center of mass*. Well, the size of a planet/planetoid/moon/etc... determines our distance to the center of mass. If the earth's mass was the same, but the radius of the earth were half the size, we'd weigh 4 times what we do today.
You should e-mail that guy back with this answer and see what he says now.
- Kevin
* assuming a spherically symetric mass -- of which the planets and moons are close enough for in this discussion.
Not if the earth revolved faster enough to balance the gravitational pull with the centrifugal force.. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinHall
Actually, you would "weigh" the same amount, you'd just have an offsetting angular momentum. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by exterminator
i was asked
why do u want to work on java
i answered
ok i can work on dot net even
But you did not answer the question. ;)
This is on weight issue.
The difference between weight and mass is the gravity factor. That is weight is mass multiplied by gravitational acceleration.
In other words your mass is same on moon and earth, but earth has more gravitaional force then moon, hence more g( gravitational acceleration ), so yuour weight is more on earth. The gravitational force I think is dependent on the magnetics and what consists of a planet or solar system object. Jupter, has more gravity then earth, hence you weight more. It's not dependent on size, black holes have very small size compared to other solar system objects, but highest gravity( so high it's impoosible to escape a black hole). I think gravity comes from the magnetism and rotation of a planet( could be wrong ,was a while since looked a physics book last time ).
So simply,
weight = mass * g
more the gravity more is g and hence even with same mass more weight
Okay this is like off topic but this weight issue has been brought up a lot.
It is not the difference but it is the factor... Now, wherever you go mass remains constant.. unless you are travelling at a speed comparable to that of the speed of light.. The mass in that case is called relative mass (i am not sure) and is derived from the Einstein's equation -- m' = m/(sqrt(1-pow(v,2)/pow(c,2))) where c = speed of light... No need of going much into relativity on codeguru... there must be some physics forum somewhere... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by venAdder
When we consider such issues like weight on earth we donot consider the infinite bodies in space and their pulls... because their effect is near to negligible than that of the earth... (remember acceleration due to gravity is proportional to the inverse of square of the distance that separates the two bodies... Magnetics are considered differently from Gravitation.. Magnetics form what is called the magnetic force..Quote:
Originally Posted by venAdder
Yes .. it depends on size ... better said - the distance between the center of masses of the two bodies.. and their corresponding masses...Quote:
Originally Posted by venAdder
Black holes are very highly dense bodies.. their density is very high... so the pull is very high ... why - because the distance between the CM (center of masses) would be smaller and the corresponding masses would be higer... which all adds up to produce greater gravitational pull... Stars die out either forming a black hole or causing a supernova explosion..Quote:
Originally Posted by venAdder
Again magnetism is totally a different beast... Rotation (probably revolution mixed with it) of a planet is what causes the Coriolis force.. I dont know much about it so will leave it.. But when an object is kept on the surface of the earth - it is acted upon by two forces.. (there are many more but just to keep it simple) - gravitational pull of the earth.. and the centrigufal force due to the rotation of earth on its axis.. the gravity makes it up for the centrifugal force else we would have had all fallen out of the atmosphere... this mechanism is similar to how an atom is stable - with neutrons and protons in the center and electrons revolving..Quote:
Originally Posted by venAdder
Hope this clears up things... ;) Whoosshhh...
I found this thread so interesting that I read every post.... on company time... so if I dont want to face a stupid question at a job interview, I better leave now. :wave:
Actually, if you assume that gravity is proportional to the inverse of the square of distance, then you have to conclude that there can not be infinite bodies in space. Infinite bodies by definition would have to be "evenly distributed" over infinite space. That is, if you took an infinite space and filled it with an infinite amount of objects, any given point would be indistinguishable vis-*-vis being the center of mass. This would mean that within such a system, nothing would be able to move as there would be an infinite gravitational attraction along every vector. Remember, if you multiply an infinitesimal amount by infinity, you still get infinity.Quote:
Originally Posted by exterminator
By infinite I meant a lot of 10^22 (as they say) - but your comment/deduction is interesting, Comintern ;)
Enter general relativity where even gravitational signals travel no faster than the speed of light....Quote:
Originally Posted by Comintern
I think you mean enter quantum mechanics, where gravity is considered to be a particle. In general reletivity, gravity is considered to be a distortion of space-time ;) . Thus, the cumulative topographic effect would mean that the effects of gravity would not be limited by c. It actually raises the same question that the uniformity in the cosmic background radiation does, but we'll get the answer along with everyone else when somebody cracks the grand unification problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinHall
The more interesting reletivistic effect (and more relevent to people standing on spinning bodies) is frame dragging. But alas, if you started digressing into the deep recesses of physics during a job interview, I'm guessing you'd see some pretty blank stares. A good answer to the 'how much does it weigh on the moon' question would ask who's frame of reference you should measure from. :D
Trust me. I went to grad school for physics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Comintern
But in case you don't, here's an excerpt from wikipedia (emphasis added):
Quote:
Like electromagnetic radiation, in general relativity (and many other theories), gravitational radiation travels at the speed of light and is transverse (meaning that the major effects of a gravitational wave on the motion of test particles occurs in a plane orthogonal to the direction of propagation). However (roughly speaking)
Interesting? Very! Relevant? More relevant than gravitation waves because it is actually possible (though difficult) to directly detect rotational frame dragging today. Obviously rotational frame dragging is not as relevant as the accelerational frame dragging (i.e. Newton-like gravitation) though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Comintern
True. True. :D :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Comintern