832
reason enough to fail the interview (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
121 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
A picture of Edsger Dijkstra with a concerned face and the following text on top: How software engineers look at your code when you solve the problem using two tables — instead of using the Maxwell-Ross-Karmakar algorithm, which is marginally optimal in ordered sets bijectable to the exponential curve
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 150 points 2 months ago* (12 children)

On further inspection, it was found that the mathematician had assumed an ideal sphere of constant radius, while the real object was in fact oblate. The mathematician had neglected to take any measurements, leading to an incorrect value. The physicist's answer was correct, but only at sea level at nominal temperature.

The engineer is currently using calipers to measure the diameter of the object at many different angles in order to build a CAD model. He said we could expect results next year.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 72 points 2 months ago (10 children)

    The physicist’s answer would be correct anywhere, no matter the temperature or density of the fluid.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 2 months ago* (9 children)

    Assuming the time between submersion and observation is greater than zero, increasing temperatures above boiling would give increasing error.

    Conversely the physicist may get other error at/near freezing.

    And yet another option is the fluid being above the Ball's melting and/or boiling point, assuming changes in density with phase change.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    All of which the physicist can trivially account for, control and variable test around, should the requested question be updated to require it.

    The requested question did not include "In all possible scenarios", thus determining the volume of the sphere via physics calculation at the most average of conditions, is the most correct valid solution, absent further requirement parameters.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    You're right in terms of grading a student's homework or whatever.

    In research/publication/career these assumptions must be stated unless given.

    But I was responding to:

    The physicist’s answer would be correct anywhere, no matter the temperature or density of the fluid.

    Which includes non-standard conditions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    This is like saying “the physicist’s answer would have errors because they measured the ball and then stuck it in an oven. The volume of the ball in the oven is different than what they measured.”

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    No it's more like the physicist tried to use boiling water to measure it

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    Using boiling water is still fine, the measurement will work, your comment literally only is a problem if they don’t measure in time. So yes, it’s exactly like sticking it in an oven and not measuring at the same time

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •