
You don't bury survivors - transcript of an interview (2007) - RiderOfGiraffes
http://www.codeslate.com/2007/01/you-dont-bury-survivors.html
======
Virax
I interviewed for a QA position at (Deleted to protect the guilty) where I had
to answer a bunch of brain teasers like this. I always prepare thoroughly and
even enjoy solving these sorts of puzzles, so I knew most of the standard ones
by heart and did fine. I would say that about half of the people who
interviewed me did not appear to have the mental acuity to answer such
questions themselves. I did learn some new and interesting puzzles though!

Two months later I was hired for what turned out to be an excellent software
development position at a completely different organization.

When I interview technical candidates, I ask a pair of related questions that
encompass data structures, sorting, and time complexity. It is a very simple-
sounding problem. The good candidates get the questions almost before I finish
asking, and the mediocre candidates struggle.

------
wglb
Ah, but the double trick answer to burying survivors is that you ultimately
do, but mabye after 10 or 40 years.

~~~
nostrademons
The triple trick answer is that you don't - they're cremated.

~~~
mononcqc
You bury the ashes

~~~
nostrademons
Or you keep them on the mantelpiece, but that could be the quadruple trick
answer...

------
gkoberger
The idea behind the questions aren't bad. The point of the questions is to see
how someone works through a problem. Even if they can't figure out the answer,
the way they try to work it out is what is important.

However, a few of these questions have been used so much they have become
cliche. Rather than test how someone works through a problem, they merely tell
the employer if the candidate has heard it already. Any employer who asks any
of these questions is lazy, plain and simple.

That being said, here are the questions (from a later post):
<http://www.codeslate.com/2007/02/survivor-answers.html>

~~~
hga
The problem is that most of the type of questions are "tricks", they require
you to come up with a specific insight (or maybe do a little algebra in your
head).

Asking someone to do this on demand in an interview is iffy; in some jobs I'm
sure that sort of puzzle solving is needed, but for most I find it a lot more
apropos to ask them to do something related to the job. E.g. to attack a
design problem, where I will indeed be looking at how they work through it.

~~~
sliverstorm
Especially so, I think, for the title question- where do you bury the
survivors? I can't say for all the questions, but that one deliberately
misleads and misdirects the listener. That's why it works as a joke.

Could be useful to see if they can be distracted or misled, but it sure
doesn't check for intelligence/insight.

------
leelin
The only "answer" that is hard to match to a standard brainteaser question was
"they are seven and a half degrees apart."

I believe the question is, "what's the angle formed by the hour-hand and the
minute-hand of a clock when it is 3:15?"

------
csmeder
Am I understanding correctly that this is satire to Microsoft style interview
questions? Pointing out they this style of question is less important that the
ones he gave examples of?

------
joe_the_user
I feel like there's beauty to this post that goes beyond parody.

These answer seem strain to go beyond the realm of brain teasers towards a
statement about the human condition...

... perhaps something _why_ would have written...

~~~
pmiller2
I agree. I think it would have been even better had comments not be allowed,
so the piece could stand on its own as a whole. It sort of reminds me of the
tech industry's version of Dadaist poetry.

------
tome
Reminds me of this:

<http://www.thesurrealist.co.uk/lateral>

------
vl
Ironically, it quotes incorrect answer to the "why manholes are round?"

~~~
PebblesRox
Really? What is the correct answer?

~~~
vl
(The reason why manhole covers are round is obvious - because manholes are
round (which also happens to have additional benefit of not allowing cover to
fall into manhole). So the question is why manholes are round?)

Manholes are round because of the same reason most wells with brick walls are
round - less material is required to support pressure trying to collapse the
shaft. I.e. given that manhole needs to reach the same depth, it will be
cheaper to have round shaft than, lets say, square, because round shaft walls
can be thinner, but still support required pressure.

~~~
Super_Jambo
aha, see I was wondering why it wouldn't be triangular, not only would the
covers not fall in they also couldn't roll away.

Joke is that in the UK some manhole covers (bt?) are more or less triangular.

~~~
afterburner
Are you assuming having covers that can't roll is a good thing? Being able to
roll them might be an advantage in mobility.

