spoiler
For people that don’t know this is not how you use Calipers
Wow! That’s a creative way to use a caliper.
That’s why teaching children about metrology basics is so important.I remember when I first applied for a job in a fabrication/machine shop. One of the questions in the interview was “Do you know how to read a tape measure‽” followed by “demonstrate that you can use a tape measure” along with some other fun ones like “what is the difference between these two pieces of material” (one was aluminum, the other stainless) and other such things. I remember being surprised/disappointed that there were grown people who couldn’t read a tape measure.
I’ve worked in machine shops and drafting offices for years now, and I’m no longer surprised by people who can’t use basic measuring tools. Still disappointed though.
There’s a great test for programmers called FizzBuzz. It’s an extremely easy task - print some numbers (maybe 1 to 100), but replace them with Fizz if they’re divisible by 3, by Buzz if they’re divisible by 5, or by FizzBuzz if they’re both.
Many reasonable people consider it way too easy - if you can write this, it doesn’t mean that you can write complex programs, or that you know the applicable languages, or that you know anything about the business domain.
But interviewers know that it’s a great test because a lot of so-called programmers still fail it.
We did a fizzbuzz interview with a candidate. He passed but I had a weird feeling about it so we asked him to do another one with 7 and 21 and he couldn’t do it even with his old code right there
Damn, dude managed to literally memorize code without having any idea of what was going on. Meanwhile, I’d spend most of my time trying to figure whether it’s div or mod that i’m supposed to use to check for the remainder of a division, I always forget which is which
It’s slightly different because all numbers divisible by 21 are also divisible by 7, so you would get all Fizz and FizzBuzz but no Buzz. So the question is, should you even be checking for Buzz, or should you make your code more efficient by eliminating those lines?
I think they meant 3/7/21 instead of the standard 3/5/15.
Omg!
It’s not that great really. It’s not bad, but when you’re interviewing people just find a similar problem in your domain.
It’s good for a young dev IMO because that problem has many solutions and shows the programming style of the dev as well. But I agree that having a problem that is related to the actual work is better.
It is great because it allows you to eliminate bad candidates very quickly. It can’t be the only test, but it’s very useful as the first one.
Oh I could see how that would trap someone. It would trap me but I’m not a programmer. 😆
I very much prefer every product of multiplication of 9 up to 3000 in a descending order.
Ypu get to see a lot more than the fizzbuzz. And still very easy task. Then you can ask about processing and memory optimizations.
OK - now I’m curious, what were the most common mistakes people made reading a tape measurer? Because I’m having trouble working out how someone could screw that up lol
We had a guy we called “10/16” (ten sixteenths) because he was told to grab some 5/8" (0.625" or 16mm) steel plate, but he couldn’t find any he could only find 10/16" and 12/16".
People will count the little lines on the tape and not remember if they are 1/32, 1/16, or 1/8.
I think metric would help this.
Oh OK - that does make a bit more sense. Still not exactly Nobel prize material, but fucking up the fractions at least makes more sense than not knowing how to read numbers and count lines lol
Metric would help with everything lol. I dream of the day we finally make the switch
Yeah, fractions are dumb. Or I’m dumb and fractions are easy, but why don’t we split the difference and switch to metric?
deleted by creator
Or, in impeery’all, a toe away from that
Why don’t we split the difference and make a meter equal a yard? I will concede to a longer yard.
I worked with a girl who would say “4 and 3 ticks!” meaning 1/8ths. We laughed at her enough that she tried to improve and started saying “4 point 3!” that lead to a discussion about decimal inches. I really blew her mind when I showed her the scale in 12ths on carpenter squares.
I worked on a site with two carpenters once, and one would measure and the other cut. One guy would call out “inch and a quarter strong” or " inch and a quarter weak" etc. Meaning 1 inch and 3/8 or one inch and 1/8. Perfect cuts every time.
Isn’t strong or weak mean where the cut needs to be on the line? Since the blade is usually 1/8", weak means that the cut is made before the line, removing the thickness of the blade on the measurement (1 1/2" becomes 1 3/8") and strong means that the cut is made after the line, leaving the actual measurement. This is how I was thought, but I am not in the construction industry.
Depends on the crews tolerances? I’ve used + or - to refer to 16ths and only call out 1/8ths. 1 1/2" would be “One and four” 1 7/16ths would be “One and three plus”
In old timey boat building they denoted feet°inches°eighths°plus so 58 5/16ths would get written as 4°10°2+
I like this
Some people dont know why the metal bit riveted to the end moves…
Or they even say this is a sign of wear and means you should throw it out.
And because I enjoy sharing knowledge more than boasting I know more than others: the reason it moves is to account for the thickness of the metal hook itself.
It makes a difference if you are hooking it onto the back of something and measuring from there, OR butting it up onto something and measuring from there.
If you want accurate and consistent readings in both of these situations, the hook has to move. It basically pivots around the true point you’re measuring from.
Everywhere I’ve worked, you’d “burn an inch” or “burn a foot” meaning you don’t use the metal tab, you hold the 1" or 1’ mark at the start and measure from there.
“what is the difference between these two pieces of material” (one was aluminum, the other stainless)
Did they expect you to identify which metals they were, or just that they were different metals?
I was expected to know that one was stainless steel and the other was aluminum, but not the specific grades of stainless or aluminum. Stainless and aluminum can look very similar when they’re dirty, and 300 series stainless won’t stick to a magnet just like aluminum won’t stick to a magnet. But if you pick them up or even rap on them with your knuckles you can tell the difference.
After having a customer chew us out for something that wasn’t our fault he had us follow him to another room to discuss some more work. He borrows my tape measure and tries to measure something on the wall and the tape keeps falling over and flexing. It finally hits him in the face and hands it back to me and says “I’m not familiar with this type of tool”. I think he saw our faces turn red and eyes water up as we were trying SOOO hard not to laugh.
I want to wholeheartedly believe the caliper has the size the customer wants and the pipe is bigger, therefore inappropriate. I’ve never met anyone who would use a caliper this way, I’ve seen people trying to eyeball it or use it as a ruler but not like this
Oh jeebus fucking christ. Sometimes the dumb hurts and then you get the existential dread knowing you’re about to have to call this moron. And, even better, they usually make more money than you.
Ikr, should’ve pushed them all the way in so it’s a repeatable measurement ffs.
So these guys are smart enough to read Vernier calipers, but dumb enough to measure like this?
I’d hazard a guess that they are also reading them wrong.
please close and reverse the tool, then grip it tightly and drive it into the skull of the complaining customer
That’s why it has 4 sharp points right?
Anyone who works with clients can appreciate this one
Next time, chose a smarter client.
They don’t exist.
I am a certified blithering idiot and even I feel like a high society intellectual compared to this picture.
Two of them did this.
Just for the fun of it: i’m making it 3 in my head. 1 extra to take the photo.
Probably. And not one said “hey, thats not the full dimension of the hole”.
Judging by this, even if it’s the right size, they’ll probably install it wrong anyway, so why bother?
I hate that I have blurted this out during meetings before.
They were trying to design a caliper holder that fits the jaws in that orientation, obviously. They need to fix this, send it back.
Looks like that hole chamfer is wrong. Doesn’t properly fit the measuring device.
Idiots suck
This just tells me calipers should have 2 measuring bars on them, so gaps and other inside edges can be measured like this (maybe this already exists, idak)
Just flip it, the top bars are for measuring from the inside.
That’s what the two prongs at the top are for. Flip the caliper upside down, use the prongs to measure the inside dimension, and read it off the same scale.
Ah cool, didn’t notice those. Cheers
“Caliper jaws for inside measurement—I thought of that. Turned out it already existed, but I arrived at it independently."
I think the guy was actually referring to something a bit different, that is having a second number scale on the caliper that is offset by the width of the first jaw, so you can use the outside jaws for measuring inside dimensions. I don’t think that would work, however.
I was indeed (and I think you’re right, the calipers would need at least to be parallel on their outer edges to work this way).
I’m not sure what rz2000 was doing by (slightly wrongly) rewording basically what I wrote — I get the impression they think I was being full of myself for thinking of a (similar) concept that already exists (despite conceding that it already might) and felt the need to put me back in place.
No, I think you correctly identified the shortcoming with the tool if it were only usable for outside measurements. It does turn out that your idea was already implemented, but it is nevertheless a good idea.
The wording however is an echo of a line from Mad Men, where Pete Campbell is talking about coming up with the idea for direct marketing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a05WUtLZfU8
By using the same scale for inside and outside, you can take one measurement inside, and compare it to something else as outside without moving the scale at all.
