Not being sarcastic: The interviewer would explain it to you in 2 minutes (like the article does, including very common strategies), offer you a simple one to sovle and maybe grant you a little more time to come up with an algorithm.
If you don't understand sudoku rules afterwards or cannot implement something according to a set of rules and without previous exposure, than this might be a result the interviewer is interested in as well?
Proof writing depends more on abstract reasoning than knowledge of arithmetics.
Of course, traditionally, it works that way. I would say, though, it's harmful a bit for the reason that the basic math curriculum is so boring, it puts off many brilliant minds.
Mandatory reference: TED Talk, Wolfram on Math Education. ;-)
I actually think that students could be exposed to proofs at an earlier level. At least, the ability to conceptualize a reasoned argument.
But I think to be able to do actual mathematical proofs, elementary school students may lack many of the tools and mechanisms that are necessary. Those tools being arithmetic and basic operations. By the same token, I think understanding basic CS principles and programming are necessary prior to understanding the theory.
Though it would be interesting for an Intro to CS course that used no actual language but was taught with only psuedocode. Teach basic concepts, hell even data structures, prior to tying the concepts to any one programming language.
Let me start with a very simple sentence: people are good.
The AirBnB service depends on this simple premise. This is the first axiom of their business. No matter how insured everyone is, the axiom has to hold. Otherwise, you end up with an infinite streak of disputes.
If you invite strangers to your home, then you assume that people are good, either. It is that simple. Frankly, only a good person would invite strangers to her home. It might be slightly too naive, but it does not change the fact it takes a lot of good faith, and trust. (It might be too much, I agree, but it is not her fault, as it was not BitCoin begginers' mistake to commit into the idea of the digital currency _too much_. It is more experienced ones' responsibility to share their knowledge.)
Once you find the property destroyed, your world view is going to collapse. It turns out, basically, that some people are not good. What's worse, bad people were physically close to you, just few days ago.
It is _extremely_ stressful.
Here and there I've read comments suggesting that EJ extrapolates a bit. Even if so, so what? She is so distressed, I'm very surprised that there's so little understanding about her current position.
The way the AirBnB folks behave does not reveal that they do genuiely believe that people are good. The way the public sees it right now is that they're very cautious, as well as lawyers, and all that stuff, is rather a defensive, and unsafe, behaviour.
While I somehow understand them, the problem is that the service relies on the assumption that people are good. After all, it is about _sharing your property with complete strangers from Internet_ (no matter if it is your home, or the other one.)
The reason why the story reads so bad is that it mixes up the social context of sharing per se, with the formal context, relying on lawyers and PR firms. All comments points out that getting her a new property sets a precedence for further refunds are totally off the took. To come up with such comment, it takes to view the world as a distrustful place. The view that, basically, contradicts the whole idea.
To me, the whole story is about nerds facing social complexities. The business they've created is not about numbers (i.e. brokering rooms, without having to incur the costs of building a hotel), but about sharing. The sharing, in nearly all cases, of single most valuable thing in your life.
I'm so frightened with lack of common sense.
First of all, the AirBnB folks should ensure her that people are good. I mean, people _are_ good. That the unfortunate event was a nightmarish accident, not the correct image of the world (no BS here, as, statistically speaking, the event is an outlier.)
Ensuring someone that the world is a trustful place definitely does not involve communicating publicly, or privately, with lawyers, or PR companies. I don't know how to explain this but it is all about showing that you're a human (of course, it still makes sense to speak with a lawyer before, though to avoid some simple misunderstaindg.)
We don't know her. We have no idea what are the actions necessary in order to make her safe. I think, though, it takes nothing more than showing your real, not faked, care, and, what comes as a surprise, asking her, not a PR company.
Once this is solved, the community should be somehow informed about the solution. If she wants to, EJ could write the explanation. She would have control over the amount of private informations shared, giving her power she has lost due to the abuse. Also, the really case closed means a good story about the world within that people are good.
Personally, I think it makes a lot of sense to offer her a job. She is an extremely talented writer, and seems to care about people. The AirBnB business operates heavily in the social context, so so good person, coming from inside, would be priceless for a now a bit dry company.
Of course, meanwhile it makes sense to get constant updates on legal implications. This is mostly the internal process, though. It takes very little to commit an honest legal mistake, so it cannot hurt (keep in mind to ask EJ is she needs legal help, too.) The same goes with the PR firm. I'm under impression, though, they would recommend similar steps to me. The PR folks I know are really good people.
It might be that EJ does not want to speak with the founders anymore. There is already a lot of misunderstanding, and I would understand her if they've lost her trust. If so, either the investors or the directors should step in. I realize that it sounds _too much_. However, PG is already involved, and members of both groups signal that there is a more mature instance that overlooks the things to be fine.
I do not believe that the solution cannot be reached. It does. It takes, though, understanding that people are good.
(On a more formal side, the reason why it was really a bad idea to mention lawyers publicly is that the AirBnB itself operates within a grey area. Depending on the local laws, the service is either illegal or not covered with all hospitality laws.
It means that signing up the property to the service takes valuying the social relationships more than legal matters. It cannot be otherwise given that, it turns out, some guests were completely anonymous (guests of the guests?), to say nothing about lack of cameras in most buildings.
The lawyers, and formalities, raised so frequently create a state of understandable confusion. If renting the property is dubiously insurable (I'm not sure whether insurers were that happy if knew that they insure hotel rooms per se; the fact has to spread, yet, though), and there are no legal protections, there is nothing but the social trust to rely on.)
That said, I wish all the parties involved the best.
I wish EJ only good things from now. ;-) And, I wish AirBnB more luck, as they've faced a huge sh*t-storm, and I like their service for the reason it relies on _good_ behaviour.
