News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Cistercian Numerals by NeoTar on Tuesday January 31, 2023 @04:41AM (#34593195)
Out of interest, what would you consider to be a good reply?

The 'obvious' answer is to have a second glyph (and third, etc.), but that's rather a boring answer.

Perhaps making a cross-shape so you have four-arms to work with (and can thus get to 10.000.000).

Or making a capital H shape would let you have the next four digits, which could then be extended out indefinitely; |-|-| etc.

Re:Cistercian Numerals by edent on Tuesday January 31, 2023 @06:57AM (#34594006)
You could use multiple dimensions. Or colours. Or fractals. Or any one of a hundred things.

But the real answer to any "how would you...?" questions is to reply with "Who are the users and what are their needs?"

Re:Cistercian Numerals by MayeulC on Tuesday January 31, 2023 @07:15AM (#34594127)
Well, another obvious extension would be to prolong the vertical line, since it's already ordered by rows (two of them).

Or, indeed, you could make an array out of them, making a super-glyph (kind of like a block matrix). Four blocks of four digits would get you to 10^4^4 = 10^16 so 100,00,00,00,00,00,00,00 (or 10000,0000,0000,0000, or 10,000,000,000,000,000 depending on your grouping), which is 10 Quadrillions in short- scale. Obviously grouping digits by blocks of 2 or 4 makes mor sense, since that's a row or a glyph.

Interesting discussion though, which is probably the goal here, rather than a good or bad reply: it allows you to see how the candidate thinks or approaches a problem.

Re:Cistercian Numerals by sbussard on Wednesday February 01, 2023 @11:01AM (#34612354)
It’s intentionally open-ended to engage in discussions about functional and quality attributes. Does the candidate ask questions or just jump into an answer?

I love it because it’s very open-ended and demonstrates problem solving. It’s a great conversation piece.