Half the time another dev asks me a question they either a) haven’t even googled the error message, or b) are trying to offload their work while keeping any credit.
Definitely help your coworkers when reasonable, but set limits and don’t let yourself be taken advantage of.
I’d love to see the course list for a 4 year degree in social justice
If Linus knew he wasn’t going to recommend anyone buy the waterblock no matter how it performed, but also didn’t want to show it off as a niche ‘supercar’ of waterblocks, then why agree to review it at all? Was he maybe not in the loop at all until shooting the video?
Seems like there was no good way for this to turn out for Billet which is a real shame since they seemed to just want to show off something cool and maybe get some publicity for their startup.
And auctioning off their handmade prototype, even accidentally and for charity, is a collosal fuck up that really can’t be solved with money alone.
This is interesting. Naively I’d expect that each number in a shuffled array of length n has a 1/n chance of ending up in the correct position, so there ought to be on average 1 correctly placed number regardless of the array length. I might be neglecting a correlation here, where each incorrectly placed number decreases the odds for the remaining numbers. Assuming the above though, the whole problem becomes recursive, since we’d be left with an unsorted array of length n-1 on average. The expected number of sorts would then just be n. For the time complexity, we’d have O(n) for the original shuffle, plus O(n-1) for the next, and so on, yielding O(n^2) overall.
I thought “genuine” was the middle grade, with “bonded” being the lowest. Bob’s Furniture used to market “genuine bonded leather” sofas which I found both clever and infuriating.
Key seems valid. I’ll check all the integers for you to see how accurate it is.