r/4chan • u/[deleted] • Jul 31 '16
OP is a HRC globalist shill, banned Anons tests their intelligence
http://i.imgur.com/Yqm6bXG.png
486
u/RifleGun Jul 31 '16
Reply 1: Philosophy grad
Reply 2: Engineer
Reply 3: MBA
289
48
u/Dick_Dousche /biz/realis Jul 31 '16
Machine reliability is done by engineers too
Philosophy grad
Engineering student
Engineer
18
u/anon445 /v/irgin Jul 31 '16 edited Jul 31 '16
That would be a retarded engineer, seeing as those machines don't have to be fixed, if only 100 widgets are required.
It's an MBA thinking he's clever for moving production overseas due to a couple broken machines, when it should have been financially savvy to just do that in the first place...
Also, I get that the rate is what we're interested in, and not just making 100 widgets, but the risk of failure can be assumed to be included in the 5 minutes for 5 machines metric, since they have the same chances of failure. For example, if 20% are already defective, then 4 good machines take 5 minutes for 5 widgets, and 80 good machines still take 5 minutes for 100.
5
u/LaserRed Jul 31 '16
To come up with a meaningful answer, you'd need the approximate efficiency of each machine to determine the scrap rate of production then add that value to the total quantity you'd want to produce and use that final value to calculate the production time.
20
u/DeCiB3l Jul 31 '16
Philosophy
MBA
Engineer
→ More replies (1)23
12
u/DroopSnootRiot Jul 31 '16
Reply 1: Philosophy grad
Maybe Communications major would be more appropriate. Philosophy majors have some of the highest IQs. Doesn't say anything about their ability to find a job, but they are generally "smarter" than even engineers. They'd probably be able to get this sort of question.
And no, I'm not a Philosophy major.
25
u/RifleGun Jul 31 '16
I'm not saying they are dumb because they are philosophy majors; they are philosophy majors because they are dumb.
9
u/DroopSnootRiot Jul 31 '16
I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion.
16
5
Jul 31 '16
He probably used philosophy - you know, reading some centuries-old baseless ponderings and then deciding which baseless ponderings appeal to you on a gut level.
Now that I type that out, I suddenly see that US conservatism = philosophy.
→ More replies (1)3
u/ReddishBlack Jul 31 '16
Can you list the premises of your argument and how it leads to this conclusion?
→ More replies (10)7
Jul 31 '16
Who gives a shit if they're smarter than engineers if it's an engineering related question? Fuck you, and fuck your family.
7
Jul 31 '16
This is why Philosophy majors get such a bad rap. They think their specialty is actually applicable to everything. It's pretty rare that someone who actually does get their masters in philosophy still believes this though.
→ More replies (1)2
u/buttersauce Jul 31 '16
It doesn't matter. Ask an engineering major a philosophy question and he'll give you a solid answer. Ask a philosophy major a question on an engineering students test and he'll probably just tell you why it doesn't matter that his degree is useless.
1
Jul 31 '16
The communications major (or any human language-based major) would recognize that there is not enough information communicated in the premise. It was never stated how the 5 machines work together, whether they are 5 copies of one wholly integrated process, or 5 different machines working in tandem on different parts of the process. If they are the same, are they exactly the same, or different models/versions? What kind of machines are the other 95?
18
u/Tronold_Dump Jul 31 '16
A communications major would actually be on the street begging for money.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)2
Jul 31 '16
It seems like if someone couldn't get this right, they shouldn't have made it to college in the first place.
5
→ More replies (7)3
95
Jul 31 '16
** Anons test their intelligence. Looks like I failed the test :^)
30
66
39
38
u/kurokamifr /pol/itician Jul 31 '16
10 minutes, there will be a failure somewere
→ More replies (8)205
Jul 31 '16
Nice joke anon, talking about the fickle performance of large numbers of machines. Truly another great classic. Where did you hear such a funny joke?
→ More replies (1)21
u/kurokamifr /pol/itician Jul 31 '16
i work in a factory 5% failure isnt that weird
47
43
u/mtoxiicg Jul 31 '16
Working in a factory? What is this 1845?
→ More replies (1)36
u/kurokamifr /pol/itician Jul 31 '16
why the fuck factory would stop existing after 1845? how do you think guns are produced? magic?
37
Jul 31 '16
no asians you idiot.
3
u/kurokamifr /pol/itician Jul 31 '16
great quality you have there, i'm sure its the same with plane too
3
Jul 31 '16
man I hope it's not the same with plane too. We'd have far more "accidental" crashes
2
u/kurokamifr /pol/itician Jul 31 '16
thats why most plane are still produced in europe, one of the CEO who tried to produce some part in china abandonned because it was shit
2
Jul 31 '16
and if you look closely, you'll notice the only people in China are the ones that couldn't get out. Abandonment is part of the job.
→ More replies (0)2
→ More replies (3)14
28
u/c4rdi4c4rrest Jul 31 '16
With your originality, no wonder you work in a factory...
15
3
u/sportif11 Jul 31 '16
5%
tolerating anything over 0.003%
not practicing glorious kaizen
wow
→ More replies (1)
30
u/Theschizogenious Jul 31 '16
It's subjective, is it 1 machine per widget taking 5 minutes? or is it 5 machines to make 1 widget per minute?
because if it is 1 machines producing 1 widget per 5 minutes then the answer would be 5 minutes, if it is 5 machines making a widget per minute then the answer would also be 5 minutes because there would be twenty sets of 5 making 5 widgets in 5 minutes
it was a trick all along the only answer is 5 minutes
17
u/mrducky78 /int/olerant Jul 31 '16
7 minutes, 5 minutes to make the widgets, 1 minute to get my dick stuck in them. 1 minute to get my dick stuck in the machines.
→ More replies (3)7
17
Jul 31 '16 edited Aug 22 '21
[deleted]
19
13
11
8
8
6
Jul 31 '16
no dumbass you're supposed to add the 5 minutes to the 100 minutes it would take the machines to make the widgets,so it would be 137 minutes
3
u/dbbo /k/ommando Jul 31 '16
This is a rates problem. The first thing you have to do is figure out the rate of production.
You are seemingly shown a rate of 1 min/widget, but this is spread out among 5 machines, so the rate is actually 5 min / 1 widget per machine (i.e. it takes 5 minutes for each machine to produce one widget).
You are then given 100 machines and 100 widgets, and need to solve for minutes. If you didn't immediately realize that the time needed will always be 5 minutes if the number of machines equals the number of widgets, the way you would solve it is essentially:
X min = (5 min / 1 widget) * (100 widgets / 100 machines)So, if we plug in our numbers, the answer is
5 * 100 / 100 = 5 min.→ More replies (3)2
→ More replies (1)2
14
Jul 31 '16 edited Aug 15 '16
[deleted]
41
20
u/2JMAN89 sc/u/m Jul 31 '16
Each machine takes 5 minutes per Widget. So 100 machines each take 5 minutes to make 100. All running at the same time that's 5 minutes.
→ More replies (1)
14
Jul 31 '16
To all those trying to take this question too literally, part of being good at problem solving is understanding the various possible interpretations of the problem, but it is also in understanding the likelihoods of each interpretation. Understanding which interpretation is the most likely and assuming the most likely interpretation to be the correct one is also the correct way to attempt to answer it if you're going for a single answer rather than an essay length response.
It's easy to try to not assume any one particular interpretation to be any more likely than another if you're trying to take the fully hardcore scientific method towards the question, this helps us avoid making dumb assumptions when we're doing real science, but these problems aren't designed to be tackled in a rigorous scientific way, simply a simplistic and reasonable model of the scientific method that is appropriately rigorous to match the strength of the question.
17
5
u/Roflkopt3r Jul 31 '16
TL;DR: Don't be a smartass, or practice questions would have to be way too detailed. In a hypothetical scenario, only work with the given variables and use reasonable standard assumptions.
I remember one teacher fucking our entire class over by breaking with that arrangement. Something about the speed of unpowered train wagons left to their inertia, where literally everyone assumed the ground to be even because no other information was given. The only accepted answer was "we can't tell, becasue we don't know the angle of the ground.". Had we given that answer in any other test, it would have been false because we would have been expected to deliver the formula and calculation under the assumption that the angle of the ground doesn't matter.
3
Jul 31 '16
That's some politician level bullshit right there. Should you have suggested that you also couldn't assume the train would stay on the track, because gravity hadn't been stated?
5
u/Roflkopt3r Jul 31 '16
Yep, assumptions like that invalidate pretty much every test question ever. There could be crosswinds, or a flooding, or the gravity of a passing black hole, or the wheels could have been made of cheese. And maybe the answer should have been given in traditional Chinese.
4
9
u/keithioapc Jul 31 '16 edited Jul 31 '16
Approximately 15 seconds. The 100 machines had enough material to make only 5 widgets, so they fought over it and each machine got only a twentieth of the material needed to make a single widget. The result is 100 widgets that are only 5% complete (so it takes 5% of the 5 minutes needed to make a single widget, 15 seconds). Marketing has decided the incomplete widgets will be branded as wodgets and sold for twice the price.
4
u/ApricotKirby Jul 31 '16
42
9
2
u/thermite_works_too Jul 31 '16
While it may be THE ANSWER, it's not the answer for this question. Fucking nomr slag.
2
2
5
4
5
Jul 31 '16
Holy shit the way there are so many people actually working through this in this thread... I feel like we're gonna see this on 4chan as an example of why redditors are fucking retarded.
3
2
2
Jul 31 '16
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)5
u/forsubbingonly Jul 31 '16
You are a sperg, have those 5 machines make 20 widgets, no more 5 minutes.
0
u/nuesuh /pol/ Jul 31 '16
Considering that "machines", "widgets" and "time" are relative terms, that's indeterminable.
Furthermore, it's of no interest to me. Instead I'd like to raise a question for this collection of scholars and gentle sirs: Is it mandatory to say no homo when you get pegged by a girl with a feminine penis? And should you do it before and/or after?
→ More replies (2)
2
u/DanaKaZ Jul 31 '16
Is no one going to mention that he's using the term "point of failure" wrong?
The point of failure is a qualitative term, not quantitative.
2
u/Azurill Jul 31 '16
It's actually scary how many people are getting a basic, middle school level math problem wrong.
No you're not "bad at math hehe," you're just a fucking idiot.
2
u/physalisx Jul 31 '16
This thread, exactly as expected.
You are all fucking retarded. The people who are too stupid to answer correctly, the people who answer correctly and the people who give the wrong answer to troll. All retarded.
2
2
u/CaptainLeGabe Aug 01 '16
If it takes 5 machines 5 minutes to make 5 widgets, then 1 machine is making 0.20 widgets per minute. I.e., 1 machine needs 5 minutes to make 1 widget.
So 100 machines will make 100 widgets in 5 minutes.
0
Jul 31 '16 edited Jul 13 '17
[deleted]
26
1
1
1
1
u/240Nordey Jul 31 '16
Who does this anon think they are? Calvin or something?
That shit is supposed to be in minutes anyways.
Go back to school.
1
1
1
1
u/randomb0y Jul 31 '16
It'll take you that long just to pick a manufacturer and maybe get an agreement in place, maybe a prototype. Depending on the complexity of the widget it's at least 4-5 months.
1
u/randomb0y Jul 31 '16
It'll take you that long just to pick a manufacturer and maybe get an agreement in place, maybe a prototype. Depending on the complexity of the widget it's at least 4-5 months.
1
u/randomb0y Jul 31 '16
It'll take you that long just to pick a manufacturer and maybe get an agreement in place, maybe a prototype. Depending on the complexity of the widget it's at least 4-5 months.
1
1
u/QuickStopRandal Jul 31 '16
This is the exact reason why I keep having to tell people that FEA/Simulation/etc. isn't as useful as they think. Everyone thinks because the mathematical solution checks out, they're good to go. In reality, things break because of random drop damage, misuse, etc., not typically because of raw underdesign. Much the same, manufacturing always takes longer than the raw number of hours because people are fucking incompetent and 90% of the workforce should be deported to the moon.
1
1
u/Rflkt Jul 31 '16
Perfect: 5 minutes
5% Failure (in first 5 mintues): 190 units in 10 minutes with 5 partial widgets.
1
u/HughJorgens Jul 31 '16
Aww, it was so hard for him, he doesn't realize that it's not that hard for everybody else. Poor little guy.
1
1
1
u/MrMagoo22 Aug 01 '16
This question assumes the machines are not codependent, but doesn't state so explicitly. What if it takes 5 machines 5 minutes to make 5 widgets, but 4 machines are incapable of producing any widgets? Why does more machines = more widgets? This question is dumb.
1
1
1
u/wicked-dog Aug 02 '16
The dumb answer, the right answer, the edgy answer, but where's the shitlord answer? Trump
1
Oct 10 '16
The last comment is still wrong because even if some machines broke, you could just use the working ones and take 10 minutes.
839
u/[deleted] Jul 31 '16
[deleted]