this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2026
867 points (98.4% liked)

Programmer Humor

33083 readers
999 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
anzo@programming.dev
Feyter@programming.dev
BurningTurtle@programming.dev
pylapp@programming.dev
867
reason enough to fail the interview (lemmy.world)
submitted 3 days ago by groctel@lemmy.world to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
155 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] untorquer@quokk.au 14 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 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.

[–] tyler@programming.dev 2 points 2 days ago (1 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.”

[–] untorquer@quokk.au 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] tyler@programming.dev 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] untorquer@quokk.au 1 points 1 day ago

Fair, if you do account for the change in water volume over time then you could maintain accuracy, but also good luck reading the meniscus.

[–] cloudshouter@lemmy.zip 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

They just said the ball was red, they didn’t say why…

[–] untorquer@quokk.au 1 points 1 day ago

Responded to inline comment saying any temp would be fine

[–] Aqivex@fedinsfw.app 11 points 3 days ago (1 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.

[–] untorquer@quokk.au 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Aqivex@fedinsfw.app 2 points 1 day ago

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.