←back to thread

250 points rcarmo | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.205s | source
Show context
inreverse ◴[] No.41911288[source]
Leaving aside the topics of authenticity and the questions' historical context, it's interesting that the article claims that "most" of the questions are impossible, while >80% have a single clear interpretation. For example, "draw a line under the last word in this line."
replies(6): >>41911324 #>>41911327 #>>41912775 #>>41913752 #>>41914252 #>>41914295 #
tptacek ◴[] No.41911327[source]
Yeah? Which word do you draw the line under?
replies(1): >>41911387 #
happytoexplain ◴[] No.41911387[source]
Is there a word trick here I'm missing? I can only interpret it in the face-value sense of underlining the last word, "line".
replies(1): >>41911396 #
tptacek ◴[] No.41911396[source]
Sorry, no votes for you; it was "word".

No, wait, you needed to underline every occurrence of the word "line".

Again, no idea if this test is real, just, that's the gimmick.

replies(3): >>41911435 #>>41911503 #>>41914168 #
Izkata ◴[] No.41914168[source]
> Sorry, no votes for you; it was "word".

If it was this, there would be quotes around "word".

> No, wait, you needed to underline every occurrence of the word "line".

If it was this, it wouldn't say "last".

This particular one is not ambiguous.

replies(2): >>41914965 #>>41915581 #
1. mrguyorama ◴[] No.41915581[source]
>If it was this, there would be quotes around "word".

And who would you argue this to? The guy giving you the test who has the freedom to fail you for any reason they want?

There's no appeals court. These tests were not tests.