幾年前，微軟發現在資源上出了點亂子，說白了吧，是人力資源上出了亂子。其實是這個樣子滴： 招聘的大門常打開，應聘的人也不少來，可是來應聘的人跟崗位怎麼看也對不上號啊。於是他們覺得該重新設計面試方法了。
按照老路子，面試就確定倆事兒：一個是這個人能不能勝任工作，二是這個人不能太各色，要能融入組織。微軟的面試2。0呢，除了這倆條，還加了一個：冷不丁的給應聘的一個根本不靠譜的問題，甚至是讓人摸不找頭腦，極其二B的提問，看看他們怎麼個反映。
一般來說吧，一個應聘的如果本來就愛玩文字遊戲，他（她）在面試的時候也會樂於解答二b問題。換句話說，如果應聘人愛吃烙餅，那他面試的時候也會愛吃。看明白了麼？這個大猜謎跟面試程序員跟本他媽的挨不上邊兒。
如果你還不知道面試2。0都有什麼樣的問題，我給你展一眼。
波音747有多重？
有個暗盒子，裏面仨燈泡，外面仨開關，線全接好了後盒子只能開一次，你怎麼知道那個開關開那個燈？
你和仨人在峽谷裏要過一個破橋，你一分鐘能過去，另外哪仨人得分別用二，五，十，分鐘才能過去。過橋得用手電，你們只有一個，你們怎麼才能用最快的時間過去？
其實吧，這樣的問題都是扯淡，你要是非用常識和實踐方法去解答那就更二了。就拿我來說吧，我肯定過不了這些問題，而且非常有可能答成這個操性：
那我得問問波音公司。。。什麼？我不能問他們？啊。。。那我就問圖書館裏的人兒，你想啊，他們一天到晚就查書啊，他們就是幹這個的啊！
這是誰他媽的弄的破盒子啊？你放心，我肯定能弄好，不過我還沒看見這盒子什麼樣兒呢，你怎麼知道我弄不好啊？？？
太明顯了。我們必須扔下最慢的那個。你想啊，這他媽的都什麼情況了啊！決不能讓大胖子拖後腿，事關生存啊！
後來啊，微軟明白過悶來了，那些答的好的不見得是好的程序員，好的程序員呢，可能答不出這些問題。事實是：那些回答的好的人非常有可能是你最不想要的人。你想啊，本來給波音公司打個電話就能解決的事兒，你非得引水造壩，然後把波音747拖到水邊上再去秤，你丫願意跟這麼一位一起上班嗎？
不幸的是，微軟明白的有點晚了。各個企業全他媽的開始用面試2。0了。微軟做的，能錯的了嗎？有的人開始著書寫怎麼問更二B的問題，有的人給企業出謀劃策，量身定做二B問題，突然之間，從皮包公司到知名企業全他媽的問起二B面試大猜迷了。
不過我覺得最終他們會明白這樣面試根本不靠譜，最後也會放棄這樣的面試。但是，現在你作爲一個應聘者，你還得學着適應這些二B問題，或，想別的折。有個朋友跟我說了他面試的經歷：
在一次篩選面試時，我被問了個問題：你怎麼給有視覺有障礙的人設計一個自行車？
我回問道：“什麼？給瞎子設計自行車”，面試官說是。
我想了一會兒，然後說：“我覺得吧，讓瞎子騎車不是很安全。如果你非讓我設計，我就把自行車固定在地上，然後給他前面放個風扇吹，他根本覺不出有什麼區別。”
面試官啞口無言。
當然了。我這個朋友肯定是得不到這個工作了，儘管我覺得他回答的挺靠譜。但是你琢麼吧，會有個二逼會給這麼一個根本不存在的情況設計出一個巨複雜之無與倫比的解決方案，而他會去公司設計軟件。
把英文原文也貼上
http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Classic-WTF-Job-Interview-20-Now-With-Riddles!.aspx
It's a particularly busy week for me: on top of a few looming deadlines, I'll be at Business of Software 2008 in Boston. So, I figured it'd be the perfect opportunity to revisit some classics.
Job Interview 2.0: Now With Riddles! was originally published on May 15th, 2007, and is one of my personal favorites.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some years ago, someone at Microsoft noticed that they were having a bit of a Resources problem. A Human Resources problem to be specific. There were a whole lot of job openings (thousands, in fact) and a whole lot of applications (hundreds of thousands, in fact), and no easy way to match the right applicants with the right jobs. So they decided to reinvent the Job Interview.
Traditionally, job interviews are used to ascertain two things: how competent the candidate is and how well his personality (or lack thereof) will fit in with the organization. With their introduction of Job Interview 2.0, Microsoft included both of those features and added one additional: how the candidate responds when presented with asinine, utterly pointless, and completely ridiculous brainteaser questions.
Of course, common sense tells us that a candidate who enjoys solving silly riddles would most likely enjoy solving a silly riddle at a job interview. The same can be said about pepperoni pizza: chances are, if a candidate enjoys eating pepperoni pizza, he will also enjoy eating pepperoni pizza at a job interview. Both are facts which, while completely enthralling (no way, you like pepperoni pizza, too?!), are equally as irrelevant when determining whether someone would make a good programmer.
If you haven’t seen any of the Job Interview 2.0 questions offered by Microsoft, here are a few:
How would you determine the weight of a Boeing 747?
Given an opaque box with three light bulbs inside and three switches outside, how would you determine which switch corresponded to which bulb if the box could be opened only once and only after all the switches were permanently set?
You are at a ravine with three others and need to cross a rickety bridge. You can cross it in one minute, the three others can cross it in two, five, and ten, respectively. A flashlight (your group has only one) is always required to cross, and only two people can cross at a time. How do cross as quickly as possible?
Naturally, being that they’re brainteasers, no common sense or practicality is allowed. And this is precisely why I would fail miserably at this part of Job Interview 2.0:
I’d ask Boeing… I can’t ask Boeing?! Uhh, I’d ask a librarian… Of course a librarian would know, they look stuff up, that’s their job!
Who would build such a stupid, broken box? I’d fix it of course… I haven’t even seen the stupid box! How do you know I can’t fix it?
Obviously, we’d leave the slow guy behind. We’re clearly in a bad place, in a bad situation, and we don’t have any time for the big fat fatty to slow us down. It’s survival!
Thankfully, Microsoft realized that the type of people who enjoy these riddles aren’t always good programmers, and good programmers aren’t always the type who enjoy these riddles. In fact, some of the folks who can solve these riddles are precisely the type of people you don’t want as programmers. Would you want to work with the guy who builds a water-displacement scale/barge, taxis a 747 to the docks, and then weights the jumbo jet using that, instead of simply calling Boeing in the first place?
Unfortunately, Microsoft’s realization came too late: a whole mini-industry has spawned around the concept of Job Interview 2.0. If Microsoft did it, it must work, right? There are books written on brainteasers in the interview, consultants who will help your company annoy the hell out candidates with your very own custom brainteasers, and now, everyone from small software firms to big ole’ banks are asking stupid riddle questions.
They will eventually realize how useless of a practice this is. They will eventually give it up. In the meantime, however, you – the job seeker – will have to put up with it.
Or not. One reader shared with me the story of his brainteaser interview.
During a screening interview, I was asked how I would design a bike fit for someone visually impaired. I responded something to the effect of, "What, like, for blind people?", and she answered yes.
I thought for a moment and then I responded, "Well.. a blind person riding a bike doesn't sound like a very safe idea, so I would make the bike stationary, maybe with a fan blowing in the person's face. He probably wouldn't even know the difference."
She was speechless.
Now, granted, he will not get the job. Despite the complete absurdity of the design request, and the complete practicality of his answer, the job will go to a candidate who manages to answer the question by designing an extremely overcomplicated solution for a completely non-existent problem. And that candidate will be the same person who designs their software.
Share Classic WTF: Job Interview 2.0: Now With Riddles!:
