So, there was an Internship and Recruitment training seminar held in my college yesterday, by a firm that's very well known apparently. Some wonderful new things that we learned:

*There are 4 types of loops, not 2. (Okay, maybe on a technicality, but still not conventionally)

*You aren't asked to write code when interviewing for a programming job. (Well, what?)

*A rolling stone has no mass. (Probably the worst mutated proverb I've ever heard)

I'm not going to sign up for this program.

For, while, do-while, what's the 4th? Foreach?

@psudo nope.
Nested loops.
😑

@fbomb
Okay, true, I think.
However, I haven't come across type 3 yet..

And that's not the answer we were given at the seminar.

A rolling stone most definitely has mass.

@g-m-f
He seemed more like an oatmeal person

Hmmm, I think that you should've ask him "sir, how do I need to group loops?" Follow up questions are sometimes more important than answers.
My answer however would be simmilar to @fbomb 's but without "infinite loops" those are not 'type' but 'subcategory' of all of them because we can have infinite do-untill as well as infinite while loops.

@Grundeir not really, you just have to assume that it has not and poof it doesn't :) thats beauty of maths ^^

@fbomb
I like how there's "accidentally" in there, makes me think of freak natural events like a fire tornado, but instead of fire or tornado, it's a loop.
But okay, yes, I suppose that's technically true.

@MaLiN2223
Good tip, I'll keep that in mind.

@MaLiN2223
This reminds me of the old farmer's fence joke...

"I declare myself to be outside"

@fbomb is that even a real thing in programming languages beside assembler-like?

@sysm9 this is the real thing in math, math is all about changing perspective. There is a great ted talk about it.

@fbomb ohh thats right i forgot about it, my bad.
We should call it "goto-loop" then, how about that?

Doing something like while(true) could also be considered a kind of gameloop but the condition is mentioned but always true and not 'not mentioned'.

@sysm9 i would call bullshit on the "nested loop" and the stone bs

@azous I did, albeit politely, when the seminar ended. That mass thing really grinded my gears.

@Grundeir @Grundeir @sysm9

Infact, a rolling stone has more mass than a static one. As kinetic energy increases and because the speed of light in a vacuum is absolute, E=mc^2 states that mass must increase.

Therefore, Ɐ stones M >0 => M(Rolling) > M(Static)

Q.E.D.

Also, you are absolutely asked coding questions in interviews. Who told you otherwise lmao? The interview at most companies consists of a few behavioral questions and then a bunch of coding or language specific questions. Also, top companies will often not bother with the behavioral and only do algorithm questions.

@@fbomb but that is ignoring the fact that the stone's speed is approaching the speed of light (from quite a ways away, though it may be) so its mass is ever so slightly increasing.

@fbomb you are speaking of that which is taught in basic university physics or high school physics. This is correct for most people and satisfied most equations but in truth it is incorrect. Mass does indeed increase as speed increases. This is because speed and therefore mass is relativistic and differs depending on the frame of reference from where one is viewing an event occuring. If mass did not increase as energy does, then this would allow objects to accelerate to relative velocities past the speed of light!

@fbomb wait, I think you have that backwards (or at least, wrong)... the inertia of an object would have to increase as it approaches the speed of light, and inertia is only dependent upon mass, so mass would have to increase for inertia to, right? I would assume that that change in mass would cause a change in weight as well, would it not?

This thread right now