
The Orange Juice Test (1985) - tosh
https://www.intercom.com/blog/the-orange-juice-test/
======
michaelfeathers
I'm stunned that no one is mentioning that this story came from Gerald
Weinberg (
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Weinberg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Weinberg)
) - who passed away a few days ago. He was the OS dev manager for Project
Mercury. He wrote 40 books on topics in software development, quality,
organizational change and team psychology. He was very influential.

It's even more stunning that the author of the post didn't mention him either.

~~~
veezusk
First I'm hearing that he died. What a bummer. I got to meet him once,
briefly. Such a sincere guy.

~~~
michaelfeathers
Yes, he was wonderful.

------
donkeyd
Commenters here seem to read too much into the actual orange juice story and
don't seem to get the actual point. I've worked in consultancy for a couple of
years now and I've worked with sales people that say: "sure, we can do this",
without having a clue and even asking an engineer. These projects, more often
than not, run out of time and budget.

If I were the one on the hiring side, I'd be happy to be told that there might
be a challenge in feature X and that they'd need to get more information to
get a definitive answer. To me, that's what the article is about, not
instantly wanting to give a definitive answer, but acknowledging that there
may be some difficulties along the way.

~~~
BeetleB
>I've worked in consultancy for a couple of years now and I've worked with
sales people that say: "sure, we can do this", without having a clue and even
asking an engineer. These projects, more often than not, run out of time and
budget.

A lot of people here say this, and no doubt it is indeed a real problem. Yet
none of the books I've read on negotiation ever suggested something as inane
as the orange juice test. They all have sections or a chapter on "OK, now that
you've got the deal, how are you going to ensure the counterpart follows
through?"

The solution will depend on the situation. Some of it is your responsibility
for monitoring. Some of it (probably a lot, actually) is putting penalties in
the contract. Some of it is being proactive and exploring what constraints the
other person may be under (Is he under-resourced? Are there other decision
makers than him who can screw it up? Can he outline a plan so you can see
potential flaws?).

But nowhere do they suggest playing opaque games.

~~~
donkeyd
> But nowhere do they suggest playing opaque games

My point was that it doesn't have to be an opaque game, the story just makes
it seem that way. That's why I mentioned people reading too much into the
story and not getting the point.

> They all have sections or a chapter on "OK, now that you've got the deal,
> how are you going to ensure the counterpart follows through?"

Sure, that's a valid way to approach this type of thing. It just means that in
stead of spending most time on the actual project, you might be spending your
time on managing the your supplier. If you can get around this by picking a
supplier that makes a realistic bid, including a mention of possible issues,
that might save a lot of headaches.

This is a choice in management strategy and I've experienced both types. I've
also experienced that customers that do something like 'the orange juice test'
are often better to work with and end up happier with the end result.

There's actually a huge issue in the Netherlands currently, where major
consultancy firms make bids on projects the can't deliver. Multiple 8-9 figure
government projects have ended that way and are now in litigation stages. This
problem is both caused by the customer not knowing what they want and the
supplier abusing that to get more hours in. Gotta make that sales target
somehow!

------
rge4seesr
Sorry, I would have told the client no. Sure, it's technically possible to
have the freshly squeezed orange juice ready at 7am. But it's not just a
matter of cost. It's also more likely something will go wrong. And your
business may not be able to afford having something go wrong.

Plus, a client asking for something like this - that's a huge red flag that
the person asking is going to be very demanding, very clueless, or both. The
kind of client that won't be happy with anything you do, and won't be easy to
work with.

Our business culture is always teaching us to say yes. But there are some real
assholes out there. For your own wellbeing, say no more often. Stand up for
yourself. This guy can squeeze his own oranges.

Edit: I should add - it's even more of a red flag when your client does things
to "test" you. Sounds like the kind of person who doesn't respect your
professional ability, and won't trust you to do your job.

~~~
onion2k
To be honest, if I asked a supplier that question and they said they could do
it for the right price I'd be concerned about how they treat their staff, and
likely wouldn't buy from them. Asking people to come in at 5am so you can make
a buck is not a good way to run a business.

~~~
zulln
Pay people fair for the overtime and I see no big problem with this? All
depends on how you define fair though.

~~~
dsr_
Convention hotels typically have staff 24 hours a day. They pay shift
differentials. They can arrange for extra staff for big events.

The correct thing to do is for the hotel convention manager to say "I will get
you a price for that by tomorrow," and go talk to the banquet manager, who
will check:

\- current price of oranges, and estimated yield and wastage

\- number of juicing machines needed

\- number of extra staff needed

and come back with a price that reflects the costs, the hotel's desire to make
a profit, and their desire to land this particular meeting.

Quick estimate:

2 oz of juice per orange, 14 oz glasses, so seven oranges per glass, 700
glasses, that's 4900 oranges. Three oranges to the pound, 1617 pounds. Allow
for 10% wastage, 1800 pounds. $1.32 a pound, $2400 for the oranges. A person
with a juicer and a knife can process two oranges a minute, that's 2450
person-minutes, we have 120 minutes to do it, so we need 21 extra people. We
pay for a full shift minimum, so $15/hour for 8 hours for 21 people is $2520.
We have pitchers and glassware already.

At no profit the cost is $4920 for your 700 glasses of no-more-than-two-hours
old hand-squeezed orange juice, and now the convention manager will look at
the total price for your meeting and decide what to price it at -- but
$10/glass is entirely plausible.

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
I wonder what the orange juice test response to "No, I can't scrounge up
enough staff to fill that order" is. Are logistical impediments acceptable, or
should they just increase the price to something astronomical (top pay for
onboarding and training new staff) to compensate?

~~~
jandrese
It's a catering company, they are going to drive down to 7/11 and pick up
enough random people milling around out front. If they're lucky they will get
minimum wage, but at least it will all be cash.

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
Yeah, I know in this scenario there are ways around - though I'm pretty sure
hiring random people on the street is how Project Mayhem succeeded. I was
trying to use that as an example for the logistics - if you come to me and ask
me "I want a AAA video game" I'm not going go to be able to do that for you as
I don't have the resources available.

~~~
derefr
With an astronomical- _enough_ price, you can afford to hire 10,000 random
people, put them all through a college game-development program, and then
train the 1% of them that turn out to be good at that particular job into
competent game developers. Or maybe use the money as capital to acquire a game
studio.

------
theprotocol
I found this article hard to follow. I feel like there's a deliberate coyness
and "buildup" but it's way too playful for what it is and all but guarantees
the "payoff" ends up falling short of expectations, which it does. The
playfulness is distracting.

The supposed payoff is semantical nonsense, where the manager who agrees to
deliver on the request doesn't explicitly specify that the cost would go up.
But that's only because it's related as a summary, and in a real conversation,
costs would be discussed.

~~~
george_morgan
It's a really bizarre bit of writing in general. I'm oddly bothered by how
much this guy hates breakfast, without actually explaining why.

> “A sales breakfast for seven hundred people?” I grimaced. “That’s downright
> disgusting!”

What.

~~~
golemotron
This is something called 'banter.' It was common in speech and writing in the
19th to 20th century. Find dramas or comedies from the middle 1980s and watch
them. It's good for cultural literacy, especially if you're going to encounter
writing from that period.

~~~
fjsolwmv
Thanks for explaining why I hated _The Goal_, 2 pages of business advice ("Try
kaizen and supply chain optimization") wrapped in a Twilight-esque padding of
alcoholism, loveless marriage, and parenting.

------
destraynor
Hey folks, Author of that post (but _not_ the story contained in it) here.

Jerry Weinberg published that story in a book titled The Secrets of
Consulting. It's a very good book though, going by the comments here, many of
you won't like it (or have never consulted).

I published this piece ~7 years ago I'd say, it popped up today as Jerry died
sadly a couple of days ago (a real loss, if this style of article isn't for
you, you might enjoy The Psychology of Computer Programming[1]).

Anyways, just wanted to give context here amongst the criticisms.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Psychology-Computer-Programming-
Silve...](https://www.amazon.com/Psychology-Computer-Programming-Silver-
Anniversary/dp/0932633420)

------
DanielBMarkham
Consulting is all about having difficult conversations. Good consultants
should be interviewing the client as much as the client is interviewing them.
The OJ test sounds like a pretty good test conversation to have.

As a consultant, you're entering a world where really smart people have
already taken a run at the problem and failed. They probably know all the
angles. Too much optimism or too much negativity is not going to help -- in
fact, it can lead to a lot of wasted money. I usually say something like
"That's looks impossible. Let's figure it out." Some phrase that both
acknowledges the difficulty and offers some optimism.

As trite as it sounds, what they say is true: It's a journey. The really wild
thing is that even when the client describes something that's dead easy? It's
still a journey. That's because it's not easy _to them_. It's just easy _to
you_. Most times the conversations around problems that are easily solved are
the most difficult to have. The client has already thrown away the answer
(mostly in my experience because they didn't understand the answer in the
first place even though they thought they did) and your job is to get them to
reconsider it.

Also, hand out oranges at the door at put juicers on each table. Then each
person can have as much OJ as they want as recently-squeezed as they'd like.
(Solving the problem, of course, is not the point of the essay)

------
superice
I am not keen on the analogy with orange juice, but the gist of it works: the
company I work at got a large contract by knowing the business inside and out.
A client came to us an asked us if we could build a certain system. We said
'yes, we could, but we actually think you're trying to build the wrong
solution to your problem. Your actual problem as we understand it is this, and
we think such-and-so is a solution to that'. They were very impressed.

It is a bold move to pull something off like that, and you can only do that if
the people at the table are not clueless salesmen, but knowledgeable people
about what you are going to be consulting on.

I think this is the real case for the orange juice test: understanding the
implications of squizing so much oranges before 7am, being able to recognize
the logistical problems around that, and being able to make an informed
recommendation: 'Yes, we can do that, but at this price point because x'.
Perhaps it would be even better to suggest a solution that achieves the same
end-goal (whatever that might be in this case) through different means.

------
franciscop
I see many negative comments here, and this article feels like a tale more
than a real story.

My mother is great in business and that is one of the main things I've ever
learned. Never say a straight no, it always boils down to pricing. With enough
budget, all projects are possible. There is no BS in that.

Want some Big Data or ML for simple analytics? Sure, I'll find someone to do
it or learn enough myself, but you're gonna pay for it. Blockchain? Same
thing.

------
Nasrudith
The biggest logical flaw here is the assumption that estimation is the most
important skill here which isn't the case. Worse yet is it also assumes you
already know an approximate answer which bypasses any innovators. The smug
juicer here could be asking for several million dollars of load balancing
servers in the old way when other techniques could solve it and he has already
dismissed them as frauds because he hasn't heard of sticky sessions.

~~~
war1025
The take away is that the two parties need to be able to work together to
solve the problem at hand.

In your example, that sounds like a client that the business might not want to
deal with. That's a good thing to know.

------
r_smart
This reads like those stories you'll hear delivered by a certain kind of
priest / pastor / etc. It feels contrived, and buries a decent piece of advice
in a boring and phony-sounding parable.

------
arendtio
Some seem to be appalled by the idea that this thing is a test or trick. But
in the end, the essence is to find people who understand the problem space and
that they should not eliminate options because they think they are
unreasonable. Instead, they should present all available options to you and
add context (like recommendations). In the end, you should be able to see a
clear picture of the situation, all available options, and related
consequences before deciding which way to go.

Often you can conduct such 'tests' without some hypothetical situation and
just present them one of your harder problems you are currently trying to
solve and look how they react.

------
RootKitBeerCat
Too long a story for too weak a farfetched made up challenge... if a client
ever asked me to have 700 tall glasses of fresh OJ, it would be a 2 second
answer “Yes, I’ll order from the local organic market, each gallon of fresh OJ
costs X, and you’d need x gallons”, not some big imaginary struggle...

a more effective or gripping version should be like... “The Apollo 13 Test”...

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
... and you'd fail this particular test unless you could find an organic
market that had just squeezed x gallons of fresh OJ within 5-7AM.

------
ksec
I have also been doing this for a long time and I was surprised when this
article took some attention six - seven years ago when it first published. (
Gosh it was that long since I read it? Seems like yesteryear to me ) It isn't
a trick, nor is it a test. Just truth to be told.

With the abundant of information, expertise and tech, there isn't really
anything that is impossible unless it is pure sci-fi. The problem comes with
how much you are willing to spend / pay. Even if the price cant be agreed at
first, then we look at how often are they going to do it. Once every week?
months? or one off?

The biggest biggest problem of most ( if not all ), these people are unwilling
to paid the price of such event even if it was hosted at lunch time or dinner
time ( normal working hours ) and have frozen concentrated orange juice (
Minimal Preparation ). These kind of customer are more common in non tech
industry.

~~~
ghaff
>impossible unless it is pure sci-fi.

It also depends on the timeframe. If someone comes to me and needs some
complicated job (doesn't really matter what it--just assume it's something
that normally takes weeks to months) done overnight, the money doesn't really
matter. There just isn't enough runway.

Of course, as the timeframe gets longer, things start to become possible for a
premium cost, phased delivery, etc.

------
slavik81
Has anyone actually been involved in fulfilling this orange juice request? I'm
not convinced the author understands the problem well enough to judge what the
appropriate response is. It may very well be less difficult than he expects,
at least for a hotel with the right staff and equipment on hand.

~~~
compiler-guy
"at least for a hotel with the right staff and equipment on hand."

That is exactly what he is seeking to determine: If the hotel has the right
staff and equipment.

But it is very rare that a hotel has enough staff to freshly squeeze orange
juice for 700 people in two hours.

------
apo
_That’s a real problem. I can help you with it, … and this is how much it will
cost._

I must be missing something. How is this a better answer than the other
"flunking" responses?

All the consultant has done is slap a price tag on what must be an ill-
informed opinion given the lack of follow-up questions.

------
neves
In LeanPub you can all of Weinberg books:
[https://leanpub.com/u/jerryweinberg](https://leanpub.com/u/jerryweinberg)

They are full of hard earned knowledge that will make you a better
professional. Take a look at the bundles.

------
anonytrary
I just learned of this yesterday. Did you post this because you read ohjeez's
comment
[https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=17721389](https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=17721389),
or is this purely a coincidence ;)?

~~~
tosh
yes, not a coincidence

[edit: I thought it might yield an interesting discussion and imho it did]

~~~
anonytrary
I agree, I mentioned that because I found it serendipitous.

------
lwhi
I actually have a different take on this. There's a difference between filling
the role of a service provider vs. a consultant.

I get the point that it's important to meet a brief, but I think the role of a
consultant needs to go further.

A consultant asks 'why' to fully understand the problem. There needs to be an
element of research and inquiry to provide consultancy, even if that is just a
brief conversation before breakfast.

Why? Because, if you're solving a problem, it's important to understand what
the end goal is. I'd start by finding out why orange juice, in particular, is
important.

After meeting a brief, there's always a chance a situation or process can be
improved. Why pay money for a consultant if this isn't what you're looking
for?

------
cift
A similar idea that I like is Van Halen's brown M&M's clause. Worth a read

[https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brown-out/](https://www.snopes.com/fact-
check/brown-out/)

~~~
valleyer
Similar, but doesn't really seem to be the same thing.

In the Van Halen case, they're trying to see if the service provider even
_finds out_ about the clause; to pass the test is to weed out the brown
candies. In the orange juice case, the orange juice is clearly requested; to
pass the test is apparently to be able to work through all the potential
prerequisites.

~~~
compiler-guy
Yeah, the M&Ms clause is entirely about, "How carefully did they read the
contract, and how detailed are they in carrying it out."

------
confiscate
what if the sales/banquet manager says Yes to the outrageous proposal, and
can/will actually deliver on it because they really want your business?

e.g. they go out of their way to call their friends and family to come in 7
a.m. to help squeeze orange juice for you

then your stupid "test" just "eliminated" an outstanding provider

you are the client, can afford to play games. To you, it's just a test, just
screwing around. But to the manager/provider, it's actual business, income,
livelihood, food on the table for kids at home

maybe act like an Adult and not play stupid test games? It's business

~~~
roel_v
More likely, the guy just gets an orange squeezing machine. Every supermarket
has one, he can just have 3000 oranges delivered the day before, load them in
the machine at 6 and have his staff pour them out at 7. I don't see the
logistical problem here.

Edit: a quick google shows that renting such a machine costs ~ USD 100.

~~~
user5994461
Have you tried the automatic squeezer from the supermarket? It's so slow and
it doesn't work well with more than 2 oranges at a time. It's probably gonna
break apart before it finishes the first hundred.

~~~
deadmetheny
Two or three high-speed industrial juicers would be more than enough to handle
the task. I mean, really, this isn't _that_ bad of a job for a competent
banquet service. You're looking at a lot of oranges (4000 or so, about two
tons) and a lot of work, but banquet catering is always a lot of work,
especially for 700 people. The instance on large glasses and fresh squeezed OJ
is gonna make it expensive, but if they've said it's an established tradition
then it's fair to assume that they've done this before and are aware of the
cost. We'd be clear about the fact it's gonna be expensive just to be sure,
but would definitely say that we can get it done.

------
wruza
My usual routine of accepting tasks is: wruza, see this endless field of grass
with no civilization in sight? Soon hundreds of people will be waiting here
every morning for their orange juice. No pressure, you have a week.

I bet that looking for someone who doesn’t rage hiss at that would take much
more time than is usually required to accomplish everything to at least 80%.

Salesmen are always high with their “so many people to choose from, let’s
choose”. Nope, you have no choice actually, if you really need your “orange
juice” thing. No matter how many smart stories you spit out.

------
simonswords82
Ah man that's a shame I love Des's work but this article wasn't good.

It's simple - just be open about what you want to achieve and assess the
potential partners feedback through a series of Q & A.

Build a relationship based on trust and communication. There's no need to pass
any test, let alone one based on fruit.

I will agree with the sentiment around business breakfasts though. The most
important meal of the day shouldn't be some bullshit breakfast meeting.

~~~
destraynor
Hey SimonsWords82 - Des here. Just wanted to say, I love this article, but
it's _not by me_.

It's a story from Gerry Weinberg's "The Secrets of Consulting". Gerry is an
exceptional writer, who sadly passed away 2 days ago.

~~~
simonswords82
Hi Des - thanks for the reply and insight I did not know that. I'll have a
read of The Secrets of Consulting as it's the core of what I do and despite
not enjoying this anecdote I'm sure there's some good stuff in there.

Meanwhile, keep up the great work you and your team do, I'm a big fan.

Edit: P.S. It's Simon Swords - an Irish name, we've got a castle just north of
Dublin apparently that I've yet to claim!

~~~
destraynor
Ah! I know the castle well. Totally worth claiming:
[http://www.fingaldublin.ie/interior-pages/activities-
attract...](http://www.fingaldublin.ie/interior-pages/activities-attractions-
amp-conference/castles-churches-and-towers/swords-castle/)

------
GoMonad
Reminds me of Van Halen's Brown M&M clause. A test they put in their riders to
check if it would be safe to play a gig.

[https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2012/02/14/146880432/...](https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2012/02/14/146880432/the-
truth-about-van-halen-and-those-brown-m-ms)

------
11235813213455
on the other hand, it's much more beneficial to eat a whole orange with all
the fiber

------
ljm
This just sounds like basic expectation management, fluffed up a little to
make it sound like more than it really is (which is funny because the 'test'
itself sets up an identical situation). It reads like a fantasy of a
conversation rather than one that actually happened.

Of course you're going to work with someone who is up-front with you when
other people are just saying yes and no. "I hired you because you were engaged
with my proposal and were clear about expectations" doesn't have the same ring
to it because it doesn't beat around the bush.

------
doctorRetro
I would have severe reservations about working for an employer that resorted
to his sort of dishonest tactic at an interview.

------
golergka
Sounds extremely similar to the M&M test.

------
msla
Counterpoint: [https://xkcd.com/1425/](https://xkcd.com/1425/)

Sometimes, in software, things are hard because they're still research
problems. Solving those problems means paying Ph.D.s to _try_ to make progress
on them, with no guarantee of results. If you had guarantees of results, it
wouldn't be research, would it? Of course not.

Since most businesses aren't going to allocate money for grants, and since
firing someone for negative results _still_ doesn't get you your money back
_or_ a return on your investment, trying to negotiate with a client whose
problem involves a fundamental breakthrough in computer vision, or speech
recognition, or attempting to do what Theranos promised isn't going to be
fruitful, because success in that field isn't a matter of money. It's a matter
of, more than anything else, luck, in getting the right minds in the right
context to make the right advances, assuming the advances are even possible.

------
cityzen
"we want you to do this really complicated project"

"that sounds challenging, I think I can help!"

"jkjk there's no project, just wanted to see if you pass the Orange Juice Test
™. The project is just a WordPress site!"

"oh."

the end.

I'm glad I don't deal with people like this.

Edit: I'm unreasonably irritated with this article... this part really drives
home how asinine the whole thing is:

“But surely you considered more than that? No doubt I could get workers to
squeeze oranges at 5 a.m. if I paid them a thousand dollars apiece. But would
you be willing to pay that much?”

“I might, or I might not, but it’s not for the banquet managers to decide that
for me. That’s my job, not theirs. If your price had been too high, we would
have eliminated you, too. But that’s a different test. There’s no sense in
getting a low price if they can’t do the job, or if they’re going to con you
and give you canned orange juice in small glasses”

so you ask for all this stupid stuff (just a prank, bro!) and then when it
comes to saying, "sure, but it will be more expensive" then that's ANOTHER
test?? So as a consultant I should drop everything to listen to your tall tale
about things to don't actually exist just to show you that my porridge is not
too hot or not too cold and MAYBE gain the distinct honor and privilege to
work with you? GTFO.

~~~
dazc
I'm not keen on the orange juice analogy either but I do agree with the gist
of it.

You ask if a certain task or project can be accomplished and the people who
say yes without any hint of a problem are almost certain to be the people who
let you down.

The guy who asks for more information and, maybe, presents you with reasons
why your project isn't so simple as you thought is much more likely to
deliver.

~~~
MrEfficiency
> the people who say yes without any hint of a problem are almost certain to
> be the people who let you down.

Idk, people ask, "CAN YOU MAKE THIS APP?", I always answer, "I can".

If someone asked me if I can build some robotic thing, I'd answer "I can".

If they asked me "Can you build X in Y Weeks?" then I need to know the
project.

I have been able to do pretty much everything thrown at me. The biggest
question is how long we have and specifying what we actually want.

~~~
stephengillie
But then they ask "Can you put 45 cases of cans onto a grocery store shelf per
hour, for 6 hours straight, every weeknight between the hours of 10pm and
4am?"

~~~
MrEfficiency
"Possibly, can I see the details of this task?

I can work the hours, but I'm not sure the logistics and ergonomics of
transporting that quantity of material."

------
bitwize
Reminds me of Van Halen and the brown M&Ms.

------
nielsbot
TL;DR: Avoid hiring people/companies that seem delusional ("no problem at
all!") or defeatist ("that's impossible") when asked to bid on a challenging
(impossible?) task.

~~~
compiler-guy
The key is that it is "challenging, but possible". For the specific test: "Can
you provide a very large amount of very freshly squeezed Orange Juice at an
annoying time", the answer for a good provider is, "Yes, but I'll need a large
staff and some logistical coordination. That is expensive, but if you are
prepared to pay, I can do it."

If you say, "Not possible", you have failed because it is obviously possible,
it just takes time and money.

If you say, "No problem", you have failed, because you don't understand what
makes it difficult.

Possible but expensive.

------
seanhunter
The premise of this article that you assess people's honesty and reliability
by ambushing them with a trick (heuristic which is opaque to them) expecting
only certain responses to be "correct", is intrinsically dishonest and low
integrity. Although I would like to think that I would often "pass the test"
here, I would be extremely reluctant to work with anyone who had pulled any
bush league BS like this.

In my mind this is very similar to interviewing someone with a trick
question/riddle/conundrum and failing them if they don't answer one of a
specific set of "right answers" that only you know. It's a great way to feel
smart by rejecting people but not a great way to discriminate between good and
poor candidates.

~~~
mabbo
> failing them if they don't answer one of a specific set of "right answers"

A few years ago I did a round of interviews at Google. Despite what they say
about not doing those kinds of questions anymore, they gave me a whole slew of
them, in programming form. Not "how much would it cost to wash all the windows
in NYC", but questions like "given a grid of land, each block having a price,
pick the largest rectangle under $X".

If I'd heard of it before and knew the solution already, I did great. If I
hadn't, I did poorly- but generally figured out the algorithm they wanted
within a day- just not in the 45 minutes given. Alas, I guess I'm not "Googly"
enough.

~~~
ewiewi
I don't know, the two questions are nothing alike:

One is asking for a guesstimate, while the other is a proper optimisation
problem. To me it's a valid interview question, albeit a bit difficult for a
short session.

~~~
mabbo
There's a specific best solution involving dynamic programming. If you've
heard the answer, like say if you spent a month reading a bunch of common
programming interview questions, then you can 'solve' it in 15 minutes. If you
haven't, then you need to be ready to invent the same solution in 45 minutes
(less the 5 minutes spent explaining the problem).

Maybe Google (and the other big tech companies using the same style of
interview) is looking for the types who can brilliantly solve problems like
that in 40 minutes, but they're instead going to hire a lot of guys who read
the book of problems ahead of time.

~~~
BeetleB
I've solved this very problem without reading the answer. If you understand
dynamic programming, this is simply testing your skills in it (although I'd
agree it may be too much for a short session).

~~~
mabbo
Sure, but usually the problem is decorated in a few layers of bullshit to hide
what the true problem is. I remember the core, actual problem, but that wasn't
what got presented. So take off another 5 to 10 minutes cutting through that.

------
sfRattan
The article reminds me of Van Halen's M&M contract rider, though the Orange
Juice Test in somewhat more fickle and hostile.

From Wikipedia:

> The band's demands were not limited to technical issues; their now-infamous
> rider specified that a bowl of M&M's, with all of the brown M&M's removed,
> was to be placed in their dressing room. According to David Lee Roth, this
> was listed in the technical portion of the contract not because the band
> wanted to make capricious demands of the venue, but rather as a test of
> whether or not the contract had actually been thoroughly read and honored,
> as it contained other requirements involving legitimate safety concerns. If
> the bowl was present, then the band members could safely assume the other,
> legitimate, items in the technical rider were being fulfilled to their
> satisfaction. Conversely, if the bowl was missing, or brown M&M's were
> present, then the band members would be within their rights to have the
> venue inspect the work, ask that it be redone, etc. Their concern for safety
> was real: during their earlier tours, not only had equipment been damaged,
> but several members of their road crew were nearly electrocuted, both due to
> inadequate safety measures and preparation on the part of the local venue.
> [1]

The big difference here is that the band were using the rider as a canary-in-
a-coal-mine for real safety concerns and to see if the venue staff had read
the fine print. The Orange Juice test serves a similar purpose, but it is more
like many of the obnoxious 'gotcha' tech interview questions in which the
interviewer has a you've-heard-this-one-before-or-you-haven't trick answer
(that the interviewer almost definitely read somewhere and didn't figure out).

Different people (and especially different cultures, even within a country) do
business in different ways. Expecting the contractor to act in a way you
personally expect a good contractor would act isn't a reliable way to identify
good contractors. It might be a good way to avoid false positives... But it
probably creates lots of false negatives, which is wasteful and expensive in
its own way over time.

I don't know if there's a better metric or test, but there's got to be a
better one than early morning orange juice....

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Halen#Contract_riders](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Halen#Contract_riders)

~~~
RootKitBeerCat
This is a much better story, if only because it’s real, and involves contracts
instead of hypothetical fake cult rituals.

~~~
barrkel
The OJ story is just an analogy for any difficult but achievable ask used to
test a service provider.

------
resu_nimda
That was the most painfully smug and contrived dialogue I've read since _Atlas
Shrugged_. Would have been more effective if the whole thing was replaced by
the two-sentence summary at the end.

~~~
ABNWZ
What were your issues with Atlas Shrugged if you don't mind me asking?

~~~
r_smart
The 100 page essay at the end that basically repeats the themes of the
previous 800 pages, but with even less subtlety.

I like Rand btw, but that essay in a book of that length is pretty much
inexcusable. Just write a collection of essays or something.

~~~
aeorgnoieang
Long speeches tho were really once more common. I don't have a lot of 'feel'
for this tho because I don't even listen to contemporary speeches (because I
much prefer being able to read a transcript much more quickly).

~~~
r_smart
I'm not really sure what you're arguing here.

The speech at the end is really just a disguised essay that summarizes
everything you already have figured out, but does it really slowly, in a book
that's already taken its sweet time. From the point of view of structuring a
story, it's a waste of the reader's time. Furthermore, it's a violation of the
long standing convention that when an author writes a book about something
they don't just come out and say what it's about. They paint it into the
characters and setting, and let the ideas blossom over the course of the
story.

I don't think you can defend it by making some sort of argument towards
verisimilitude and historical speech lengths. Assuming that's what you're
driving at.

~~~
aeorgnoieang
I'll (mostly) grant you that the speech is "really just a disguised essay that
summarizes everything you already have figured out", but I don't think there's
anything wrong with that. Good rhetoric is redundant.

I also don't think it's a problem that it "does it really slowly" or that the
book itself, overall, has "taken its sweet time".

Because of all of the above, I disagree that "it's a waste of the reader's
time".

Unfortunately (or maybe not), it's a common enough violation of 'convention'
that authors write an [Author
Filibuster]([https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AuthorFilibuster](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AuthorFilibuster))
or [Author
Tract]([https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AuthorTract](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AuthorTract)).

But of course I can defend it by arguing that it's realistic in its length or
tone. Real people really do give long-winded political speeches! And the story
supports it too! And look, there I went, defending that part of the book.

~~~
r_smart
>Good rhetoric is redundant.

I'm not sure you can state that as an absolute. And certainly we can agree
there's degrees of redundancy, a threshold that once crossed, is belaboring
the point rather than expanding on it.

>I also don't think it's a problem that it "does it really slowly" or that the
book itself, overall, has "taken its sweet time".

I've got no problem with the length of the book. I found it moved at a pretty
good pace for me after the first 100 pages or so.

As for the length of the speech, how long would it take to deliver those
hundred or so pages as a speech? Hours probably? Can you point to an example
of a political speech that has gone on that long? It's news to me, but I'm no
historian.

>I disagree that "it's a waste of the reader's time".

You're welcome to obviously. Everyone is welcome to their opinion.

>And look, there I went, defending that part of the book.

Honestly, I don't find your arguments compelling though. You made a
questionable claim about rhetoric, and showed that other authors have
exhibited the same pathology. Coming to defend that part of the book doesn't
actually prove that it's defensible, just that you felt compelled to try (as
much as any of this is possibly provable).

I think the essay could have been kept to, say, 10 pages and it would have
felt like the climax to the book it was intended to be. Rather than some
waffling blowhard thinking anyone in the country is going to sit and listen to
his 4 hour pirate broadcast.

------
paulie_a
That is an incredibly stupid test. Why would you even want to work with them?
They failed my test of being a bad person to work with. It's outright pathetic
and should end with "fuck off"

