You have identified the purpose of these questions. They are determining your mindset when dealing with novel circumstances. Do you make an effort to explore and understand the actual constraints, or do you impose your own, preconceived notions on the scenario? Do you limit yourself needlessly?

The worst you can do is to treat it as a riddle and immediately give the “correct” answer. An interview isn’t a knowledge test. They aren’t trying to determine if you’ve seen and retained the accepted solution. They ask this sort of question to gain some insight into your problem solving skills.

A better answer is to step in to the question, and treat it like a real world scenario. Acknowledge the stated constraints, then explore them.

How much effort should we put into this problem? How much time and treasure are we going to spend on this? Why are we even determining which switch controls the light in the first place? What are the consequences of a wrong answer? If we’re going to get fired for a wrong answer, we should take our time and get it right. If the consequences are “go try again”, let’s just start flipping switches.

Do we have other resources available? Is there someone in the room? Can we put someone in the room? Is there someone else available who uses the switch regularly? Can we ask their assistance? (If the room isn’t being used often enough for anybody to know how the switches work, should it be repurposed to something more useful?)

Do we know that these are normal, simple switches? If they are three-way switches, or installed upside down, we can’t trust their position.

Is it safe to assume the bulb is functional? The “riddle” answer fails on this.

Is it safe to assume the bulb starts cold? Did they run this test with another candidate a minute earlier? Did they leave it in a “hot” state for us already?

Is the light accessible when we get into the room, or is it inside a ceiling fixture, 12-feet over our heads?

What are the other switches connected to? If they control fans or lights or other appliances that can be sensed outside the room, we don’t even need to leave the first room.

What is the necessity of the specific, given constraints? If this is a real-world scenario, we’re probably not going to have a limitation on entering the room only once. If we can eliminate that constraint, the problem is a lot easier to solve.

Get feedback from the interviewer: Have we adequately explored this scenario to their satisfaction? Is there some other aspect we need to address?

Blackberry insisted on a 3-row thumboard on the face of the device. I want a 5-row slider, like Samsung’s Relay.

On average, we earn enough that everyone should have healthcare and 4 -week vacations every summer

On average.

I have legitimately never seen this meme.

I’ve seen dozens of posts and articles commenting on it, but I have never actually seen this meme in the wild.

Yo ho, all together…

Law enforcement can certainly investigate, sure. But we won’t hear about that investigation unless it turns up something that can make it through court.

They would need more evidence. He can claim the autobiography is a work of fiction designed to sell copies, and that the rape never actually happened.

Without corroborating evidence, the state can’t meet its burden of proof.

once

Uh huh.

Fight club?

Wake me up when we get to #GuillotineParty.

He’s fitter and smarter than Donald, but neither LeBron nor Leonardo.

The kidnappers mutated him?!?

/s

Massive property tax increase. Owner-occupants are exempted from that tax.

As soon as a bank initiates foreclosure proceedings, they owe the full, non-exempt tax rate. That stick gives them a strong incentive to work with their borrower.

Massively increase property taxes. Exempt owner-occupants from those increases.

You want a second home, you’re going to be paying the full, punitive tax rate on one of them.

I would prioritize a VPN ahead of an ISP. Free Open/Public APs are not uncommon in my area.

AFAIK, when a law says something like “This section does not [do something]” It’s usually because some other law explicitly prohibits [something]. Without such language, the two laws could be seen as conflicting.

I think excluding girls from boys teams violates Title IX.

The law in question doesn’t actually mandate that school sports teams must be designated “based on the biological sex of the students who participate” in the sport. If you read the law, it only prohibits biological males from participating in female sports. It does not prohibit biological females from participating in male sports. Quite the contrary, it specifically acknowledges that all students, regardless of sex or gender, are allowed to participate in “boys” sports.

https://codes.findlaw.com/az/title-15-education/az-rev-st-sect-15-120-02/

The principal really needs to read the law. This school is so fucked.

https://codes.findlaw.com/az/title-15-education/az-rev-st-sect-15-120-02/

The law in question only prohibits biological males from participating in female sports. It does not prohibit females from joining boys teams. Compare and contrast sections “B” and “C”:

B. Athletic teams or sports designated for “females”, “women” or “girls” may not be open to students of the male sex.

C. This section does not restrict the eligibility of any student to participate in any interscholastic or intramural athletic team or sport designated as being for “males”, “men” or “boys” or designated as “coed” or “mixed”.

I also thought this was pretty interesting:

E. Any student who is deprived of an athletic opportunity or suffers any direct or indirect harm as a result of a school knowingly violating this section has a private cause of action for injunctive relief, damages and any other relief available under law against the school.

Government is also the entity that will be prosecuting/persecuting you when they don’t like what you have to say.

ISPs like to offer, say $65 for service (without committing to a specific speed… Their 100/100 service is “up to 100Mbps” and not a guarantee.)

They then want to charge a modem rental fee - another $5/mo. They want to charge a wifi access point rental fee - another $5/mo. They want to charge various regulatory fees, universal access fees, taxes, etc. They want their advertisements to say “$65/mo”, but they want to collect more like $90/mo.

You can buy your own modem and save that $5/mo (but they often push back against that, claiming your modem isn’t compatible, or that other customers have complained about inferior service with that modem). You can use your own wifi AP and save that $5/mo (but again, they discourage it…) You can’t get away from the regulatory fees.

The more complex answer is that the stock market at this point is just a speculative mess where numbers are made up because the price isn’t dictated by what the company is currently capable of doing but rather what the company potentially could be doing in thue future.

You seem to be under the impression it was ever anything else.