that would never take off, dont worry. SMELL, on the other hand...

i can HEAR his voice lmao

I don't have experience with interacting with these questions in an interview, but I think these questions are supposed to be a test of problem solving ability, which could be relevant in some jobs like programming, I suppose. I still think it's stupid though.

This question in particular I'm pretty sure has a BS "outside the box" answer, where "outside the box" really means "the question is very misleading and to solve it you have to realize that when we explained this scenario, we heavily implied a set of abstracted rules you could try to solve, but we actually want you to "think outside the box" and come up with a different set of rules that, if you thought we were asking this question in good faith, you would have assumed is obviously cheating", which isn't relevant to programming skills and is also just ridiculous.

(I think the answer is :

::: spoiler Tap for spoiler Turn one switch "A" on, and keep it on for some time. Turn it off, and turn another one "B" on. Go into the room. If the bulb is on, B controls it. If it's off but warm, A controls it. If it's off and cold, C controls it. :::)

unite? but then don't we have to... like... talk to eachother? until we get what we want? i mean, that could be hours...

6 articles?

amateurs...

meanwhile the polish words for "this" and "that":

tom lehrer outlived kissinger at least!

some screenshots of youtube videos i found in the wild :3

Silly :3

me when i try to domme,,, how am i supposed to be mean to them when theyre so adorable 🥺

petition to make an okbuddyrosalyn community here

man i hate it when i walk by a nuclear power plant and get hit with crippling amounts of ionizing radiation and my immune system stops working

...they should really figure out some way to like, keep the radiation inside or something...

thanks Dennis Reynolds

too real

I'm hoping to pull a legendary

ahh, i got two numbers mixed up, i got 7/16 this time

:3

exactly,, but people are mean,,,,

I'm confused about this step in the final condition's proof:

|🍎(x) -🍌(x)| +|🍌(x) - 🍇(x)| >=|🍎(x) -🍌(x) +🍌(x) - 🍇(x)| = |🍎(x) - 🍇(x)| since |q| >= q forall q

I can see how it's true by proving that |p| + |q| >= |p + q|, but that's not stated anywhere and I can't figure out how |q| >= q forall q is relevant.

Also, thanks a lot for making/showing a proof :D

well, that aged interestingly

so nice of them to add a prpduct for us jerma fans out there