x == 0 obv

0 == x way better ldo

But yeah that's probably just a syntax error for most mathematicians either way :P

Tyler, how was the partay?

it was fun. however, i don't recommend losing your id in the airport on the way to LAS.

Clowntable, what's the stuff surrounding QT that you were alluding to?

Nokia fireing Qt people/cutting dev money etc.

http://www.codeslate.com/2007/01/you...survivors.html

Well Nokia is giving up on Symbian right? Much of Symbian development was done using Qt I think, so with no Symbian it makes sense that they would have to cut back

lol wow, they really ask these bs questions, and you get hired/fired based on them? fk nah. dont see how i can ever work for someone else again. poker has spoiled me.

by playing their game, you are implicitly putting yourself at a disadvantage, which i guess most nervous interviewees fall right into

just found this link in the comments, much more to my liking
http://angryaussie.wordpress.com/200...iew-questions/

It makes sense and I think Qt will be fine but it's still going to be less fine with a whole bunch of people not getting payed to work on it anymore.
That's pretty much all I meant to say.

I'd still like to know how viable xulrunner etc. are for a multitabling poker style client compare to Qt and the like though

I don't know. I'd say the interviewer found out that the candidate would be a total pain in the ass to work with.

+1 that blogger acted about as douchy as one could possibly act. Mission accomplished, don't hire that dude.

I found this site last night and it makes life easier imo
http://www.wolframalpha.com/

for instance plug in
((1-t)^3 * A+ 3*(1-t)^2*t * B + 3*(1-t)*t^2*C + t^3 * D)'=0
and hit enter

Wolfram alpha is amazing. It's like mathematica except for free and on the internet and it doesn't freeze if you accidentally ask it something impossible.

i prefer this approach to the mt fuji question (scroll down to "Riddled"; the other stories are nothing special imo):

http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/A-Mo...-and-More.aspx

disagree completely. the douchiness is appropriate given the sht that was pulled

by putting yourself at the effect of these bs questions, you show how needy and despearate you are for the job. if you dont need the job, but are picking a job because its what YOU want, then you'd probably walk out immediately as soon as you're presented with this bs game. i'm not applying for an IQ test. i'm applying to do some work that i enjoy and get compensated for it.

so are you choosing a job, or is the job choosing the candidate? i choose to not work for someone who is bs'ing me. i choose not to work for someone who does things on a whim because they are trendy without any substantive reason behind them

if you play, you are immediately in submissive mode. but maybe thats what they want, someone to follow orders, and if you don't play, then its an easy way to filter candidates.

so yes, don't hire that dude, cause hes gonna be trouble, actually thinking for himself.


this approach is the same, just more PC, but thats irrelevant. whats relevant is the interviewee's response: taken aback, "wtf does this have to do w anything".

i like this guys response too. outwardly questioning the guy, "wtf is this", and the guy having no good answer. if he did have a good answer, then maybe my opinion would be changed, if he was really trying to test something relevant. but hes not. hes playing a game.

You haven't applied for many jobs have you?

nope. dropped out of univeristy (compsci ) to play poker good thing too, saved me from putting up with this bs that you guys take for granted

yeah greg i appreciate the sentiment and i agree that people who are awesome shouldn't settle for ****ty jobs. but i also think letting your ego get in the way of pragmatism is a big mistake.

something else to keep in mind: some people just aren't good at interviewing. they don't know how to steer a conversation or are uncomfortable improvising (a good interviewer will happily change directions if the candidate says something interesting or reveals an area in which they are passionate or whatever). judging an entire job opportunity based on a single interviewer is about as bad as asking "interview 2.0" questions.

There is no way that interview went down the way he described it, so I don't think we can make any comments on what 'sht was pulled'.

I'm pretty sure the interviewer had quite a few less 'uuuuuh's and 'ummmmm's as replies to his "brilliance" and his answers were pretty obvious, pointless and very far from as clever as he himself seems to think they were. And probably even worse at the time the interview was happening.

That said - these kinds of questions are the trend in job interviews these days - they're pointless for most jobs but then again, so are most job interviews.

Back when I had just finished my education and was interviewing for a job, the trend was for the interviewer to start the interview saying something like "You know - I think we might as well cut this interview short as I feel you're not right for this job!" and you were then supposed to put on a show where you convinced them otherwise. That approach might make sense if you were interviewing for door-to-door salesmen, but it made no sense at all for most of the jobs it was used for. It was in the latest book on how to recruit though, so it had to be used.

Ye, its a pretty cool piece of kit. Siri for the iPhone heavily relies on it (http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-19512_7...alpha-traffic/)

Also, there was an amusing case where Apple manually changed the response for 'what is the best phone' because wolfgram answered Nokia (http://www.intomobile.com/2012/05/15...-iphone-nokia/)

I'm reading "A new kind of science" on the side. Pretty interesting but the author seems to be quite fond of himself (got the same impression watching some talks he gave)

Well that's exactly what you do. You tell the guy that given this interview you don't see yourself working at the company and leave. No need to get into a debate with the man.

Thinking that one person that interviews you is an accurate representative of the company as a whole is simply stupid. Just about any job in the world, including some really amazing jobs, still have you dealing with a few people and a few situations that you'd rather not.

Lol, what?

The two approaches weren't the same at all. The second dude raised good relevant questions. There's a big difference between being a dick and basically saying "This is stupid and I don't think there's a good reason for this" and "This is stupid and there are all sorts of things you're missing here". The second dude pointed out Political, Economical, and Ecological reasons for why the project wouldn't work. If the interviewer was better he'd have realized that that's exactly the kind of people you want in Software - people that realize just how complex a given project is.

And just to be clear - I think these interview questions are stupid. In fact I think interviews are stupid and an absolute last resort (which sadly you generally can't avoid). Nothing annoys me more than hearing about somebody going through a long interview process when the decision maker has already worked with the person for a significant period of time.

it seems to me that interviews are the worst way to hire someone except for all the other ways.

shabby, what do you propose as an alternative? obviously "i worked with this guy and i trust him and you trust me so we should hire him" usually works very well, but isn't feasible in most cases.

Unless it's a job that involves talking and responding to people asking you questions, what is an interview supposed to accomplish? Proving that you know what you're supposed to, would probably be better accomplished in other ways for a lot of (most) jobs.

Having an informal chat with someone you're possibly hiring should of course be a part of the process, but whether or not an interview is a good indicator of just how good someone will do a particular job, is very much dependant on the job being directly related to being in interview-situations while performing it.