The most ridiculous interview questions.

[Comintern]

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...

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-Ã*-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.

[exterminator]

By infinite I meant a lot of 10^22 (as they say) - but your comment/deduction is interesting, Comintern

[KevinHall]

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-Ã*-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.

Enter general relativity where even gravitational signals travel no faster than the speed of light....

[Comintern]

Enter general relativity where even gravitational signals travel no faster than the speed of light....

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.

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.

[KevinHall]

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.

Trust me. I went to grad school for physics.

But in case you don't, here's an excerpt from wikipedia (emphasis added):

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)

The more interesting reletivistic effect (and more relevent to people standing on spinning bodies) is frame dragging.

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.

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.

True. True.

[Nick Darlow]

I was once asked "What 'magic' will you bring to the company?"

In another interview I was asked what I'd do if the developer I had just taken over from had spent the last year smoking crack. I think what he was trying to ask was under what circumstances would I consider refactoring code.

[CBasicNet]

My post here is not really about the "The most ridiculous interview questions"

But I want to ask u here that whether any of you have encountered a situation whereby the interviewer asked u a techincal question and you answered but he/she didn't sure your answer was correct or not, and asked you to give another answer.

[ovidiucucu]

But I want to ask u here that whether any of you have encountered a situation whereby the interviewer asked u a techincal question and you answered but he/she didn't sure your answer was correct or not, and asked you to give another answer.

Just giving a classical example: "Why manhole cover is round?"
For sure, was never asked twice to the same person, although for sure the interviewers were never sure if a given answer is correct or not.

However, who knows? Maybe there are interviewers who want discover the correct answer together with the interviewees...

[roamblade]

I find it most annoying when I am asked a question about a subject that the interviewer has no clue about.


as for the physics theme we are having here:
what is faster than light?

[exterminator]

One of the recent ridiculous one : What is a template? (related to C++ templates)
I answered something about types, compiler generating code, instantiations, specializations and an example syntax...
Reply from Interviewer : Seems you have read a book recently coz you remember the syntax?
I laughed.. but not openly... just in my mind!

Then second one : What is an index? (related to databases)
I answered they help in quicker selects and started giving the examples about clustered and non-clustered index and how they are implemented.. so as to justify how the selects can be faster...
Interviewer : Do you think about all this stuff when putting an index on a table? I just asked what is an Index and you explained me about the internal data-structure?
To this one, I could not say anything.. may be I was at fault!

The questions were not ridiculous but the follow-up ones were, IMHO!

[MikeAThon]

For a list of questions that the author believes are fair and useful in evaluating candidates, see http://oneparticularharbor.net/sam/interview.html

"What's the difference between new operator and operator new?"

Don't laugh, they had an answer.

Why do you think this is a funny/silly/ridiculous question?

Mike

[Vanaj]

Just giving a classical example: "Why manhole cover is round?"

FYI..

They are round because a circle is the only shape that will not fall through it's self.


Why are barns painted RED...

Because red paint was the cheapest to make.

[Comintern]

FYI..

They are round because a circle is the only shape that will not fall through it's self.

I thought they were round because circles provide the most efficient ratio of surface area to width.

[Vanaj]

I thought they were round because circles provide the most efficient ratio of surface area to width.

I think the priority here is safety and covers not falling in rather than how much road space taken.

[KevinHall]

I thought they were round because circles provide the most efficient ratio of surface area to width.

If you wanted to minimize the surface area of the manhole, then you'd want to choose a shape that represents the profile of people as viewed from above (or below) and choose the minimum size so that someone could just barely squeeze through. This shape isn't round .... well, OK, for the people who typically must work in the manholes, it that shape might be round.