O(1) best case and fixed (zero) memory use make it one of the best. That you can't think of any reason to use it doesn't mean it has no use.
selection sort, and that's better than bubble sort.
Doesn't selection sort use the same number of comparisions as bubble sort, but just saves swaps? A selection sort, sorting from top down, will, at the end of pass one, have the largest value in the last spot, and a bubble sort will have the same. They both then have an "unsorted" list, aside from a single fixed value. Repeat, with the same results. What measure has selection sort as "better"? Is it simply from fewer swaps? The worst case of selection sort is the same as the best case, so it'd predictable. Is that the advantage? Because Bubble Sort's worst case is the same as Selection's best case, and the BS best case is better than SS.
"before the Internet, people didn't do "cut-n-paste coding". Programmers have always built their own libraries
Then cut-and-pasted their own code base. Same as before, but you had to build a personal Wiki.
And no, if you're just "solving riddles", you're still just a flunky following orders.
"We need a new order system." [goes off and solves the riddle of what they want and how it'll integrate with the existing 100 systems]
You are a fucking idiot. Solving "riddles" is the real work. A flunky just follows orders. CEOs follow orders from the Board of Directors. All CEOs are flunkies. You are a fucking idiot.
The sarcasm you missed because you don't know what "man" is. Man is an OS command that holds no information on programming languages. Or did you not know that either?
He reads things for the purpose of finding one point of view to use against others. So he'll keep and remember only that which supports his hypothesis, and ignore everything that doesn't. Note, he doesn't read everything he can find to learn the truth and share it.
A shit programmer turns an idea into spaghetti code that works. A better programmer makes code that's clean. A better programmer makes code that's well documented (discussion into whether code can be "self documenting). A better programmer makes code that's efficient.
A great programmer does all three at the same time, without slowing down. You have admitted that you aren't a great programmer, that's fine. Most aren't. But you don't have to be a defensive prick about it.
Software Engineers solve riddles all the time. Flunky programmers translate clear ideas into code.
Think of it - before the Internet, people didn't do "cut-n-paste coding". You actually had to have large quantities of code between your ears and know what you were doing without asking world+dog. Man pages help, but only to describe the functions you're using, not actual implementation, which should always be left as an exercise to the reader, or you never learn.
Yeah, it's not like there'd be standard I/O functions programmed in included libraries. And "man" in C was always quite useful./sarcasm
Pre Internet C programmers would build their own libraries (I know I had made and tuned search libraries for myself, saving time and increasing efficiency). You'd even share them, over the non-Internet networks, or sneakernet. Include your pre-built library, and use your favorite functions whenever you want.
I know how to optimize code but I am not going to waste time pre-optimizing code that hasn't already demonstrated a performance problem.
So you are the reason that Windows 10 on a modern computer is slower than DOS on a 30 year old computer. So long as you are only looking at your small part of code, performance is irrelevant.
I'd not hire you. I want someone who would consider efficiency with every task (as well as documentation and supportability, and all that). But ask someone in an interview direct questions where the applicant can guess what you want to hear, and you'll never get an honest answer.
Not really. The Cd of a bike is really bad. Weight is almost irrelevant now. Before, the energy used to accelerate that mass was "lost", but now, with regenerative braking, the mass isn't a direct loss. A 20 hp bike pushing 500 lbs is the same weight per hp as a 1500lb car with 60 hp.
I have a 100 mpg motorbike, still faster than most cars. A Smart car hybrid with a 600cc turbo Diesel should be able to get 100-200 mpg. They aren't sitting on it, they just know nobody would buy it.
So video of the officer pooping would endanger his life. And if the police can't keep their videos from being stolen, we need new police. And it'd be trivial to make them FOIA exempt.
Yawn. Let me know when Starbucks drones can deliver a coffee to me in traffic. I don't like Starbucks, and I'd not want the drone landing on my car roof, but I'd try it once for the novelty.
So if motorized vehicles were illegal on the sidewalk, and the law is changed to allow small autonomous motorized vehicles to legally operate on the sidewalk, this action that made a previously illegal activity legal is not legalization?
I think the issue is that your dictionary is broken.
Yeah, I believe I said this before. The only similarity they have is that Japanese borrowed a bunch of words/glyphs from Chinese and then called them "Kanji". It's not that much different than English borrowing words from French or Sanskrit, except that in Japanese, all they borrowed was the glyphs and the meaning of the word, while coming up with their own, different pronunciation.
The implication that they used the kanji as they came up with the sounds is the opposite of how all languages work. Spoken precedes the writen. So japanese would have had a spoken word for "sky". Then would have stolen the Chinese word for "sky" for writing it down. Or, would have had thousands of spoken words, and no written language, then, when coming up with a language, would have borrowed the "alphabet" from neighbors.
I've not used Radix, but looking at it, it looks to be an implementation of a selection sort. It's just slightly more efficient because it's tuned to the way computers count. You don't need to look at the whole number to know that 1xx is larger than 1. It's longer, so it must be larger, even without actually knowing the number.
Already not enough want to do it. They are down to the unemployable veterans and psychopaths. The police have spent so much time convincing people it's dangerous, that people don't want to do it, unless something is wrong with them. Wasn't that always the goal?
Why is it that you would give them no-camera-time, but not give them not-reviewed-time? Seems the best balance is to have the camera on all the time, and a "private time" button that can be pressed, to "request" that it not be reviewed.
They can have all the private time they want, but if they are in the public toilet in uniform and something happens, it's better that 1000 poops be recorded and ignored than one fatal shooting be lost.
Same reason my mother kept a 3" B&W TV in the kitchen. Sometimes you want it on without really paying attention. The people I know who watch TV-like things on a phone do so in bed, or at a dinner table. They have a primary act they are doing at the same time. Those that are doing only one thing will be watching it on the one 50". The rest have screens, but not a traditional TV.
Most of the US still does not have more than 2 physical accesses to a property, and both of those options are ISPs. This limits the market to a choice of two monopolies, the copper monopoly, or the coax monopoly.
Again, your only report is more lies. Quote me. You won't, because you are lying. I've talked about the access monopolies. That is all. I've mentioned that the access monopolies are all ISPs. That the access monopolies can abuse their access monopoly in their ISP business influences ISP business. Your lie is simply a lie. You can't quote me saying that. You misinterpret and infer to pick a fight. But reality proves you wrong. A careful reading of my words proves you wrong. You are wrong, and lying about it.
The only way it could mean anything in this discussion is if you thought "coax provider" is how "ISP" is defined.
So, you understand my words, disagree with reality, then argue with reality. That's not a lie. That's simple insanity. You have no grasp on reality.
You using that statement to prove that ISPs are monopolies means just that.
No, you don't get to tell me I meant to say something other than what I said, the argue that what you deliberately misinterpret is somehow wrong.
Read again, slower this time. And don't forget to breathe.
Call my a liar for saying it, but that won't change the fact.
You are a liar for lying about what I said.
If you don't like the ISP you get with a "coax provider", use a different one.
Name a single place where you can get a different coax provider, or you are lying again. You can't say a single thing without lying again. Lying about what I said (easily provably false), then, when I demonstrated your obvious lies, you are now lying about what I "meant" when that's not what I said.
I never said otherwise. Stop lying. Seems that's your only retort, "I don't like reality, so I'll lie about it." Unfortunately, reality proves you wrong. No major coax provider isn't an ISP. That I point out that reality doesn't mean I'm saying all ISPs are coax providers, or that I'm otherwise defining ISPs.
Your demand is irrelevant to the actual topic, which is not "copper line provider", but ISP.
Your deflection would be accurate if none of the line providers were ISPs. But they are all ISPs, and all monopolies (even if limited in scope of monopoly), so they all end up with monopolistic advantage in their ISP, due to a monopoly of the type of access.
Or do I need to define "monopoly" and "ISP" in monosyllabic terms so you can keep up?
Slashdot Mirror
selection sort, and that's better than bubble sort.
Doesn't selection sort use the same number of comparisions as bubble sort, but just saves swaps? A selection sort, sorting from top down, will, at the end of pass one, have the largest value in the last spot, and a bubble sort will have the same. They both then have an "unsorted" list, aside from a single fixed value. Repeat, with the same results. What measure has selection sort as "better"? Is it simply from fewer swaps? The worst case of selection sort is the same as the best case, so it'd predictable. Is that the advantage? Because Bubble Sort's worst case is the same as Selection's best case, and the BS best case is better than SS.
Programmers have always built their own libraries
Then cut-and-pasted their own code base. Same as before, but you had to build a personal Wiki.
And no, if you're just "solving riddles", you're still just a flunky following orders.
"We need a new order system." [goes off and solves the riddle of what they want and how it'll integrate with the existing 100 systems]
You are a fucking idiot. Solving "riddles" is the real work. A flunky just follows orders. CEOs follow orders from the Board of Directors. All CEOs are flunkies. You are a fucking idiot.
The sarcasm you missed because you don't know what "man" is. Man is an OS command that holds no information on programming languages. Or did you not know that either?
He reads things for the purpose of finding one point of view to use against others. So he'll keep and remember only that which supports his hypothesis, and ignore everything that doesn't. Note, he doesn't read everything he can find to learn the truth and share it.
A shit programmer turns an idea into spaghetti code that works.
A better programmer makes code that's clean.
A better programmer makes code that's well documented (discussion into whether code can be "self documenting).
A better programmer makes code that's efficient.
A great programmer does all three at the same time, without slowing down. You have admitted that you aren't a great programmer, that's fine. Most aren't. But you don't have to be a defensive prick about it.
Think of it - before the Internet, people didn't do "cut-n-paste coding". You actually had to have large quantities of code between your ears and know what you were doing without asking world+dog. Man pages help, but only to describe the functions you're using, not actual implementation, which should always be left as an exercise to the reader, or you never learn.
Yeah, it's not like there'd be standard I/O functions programmed in included libraries. And "man" in C was always quite useful. /sarcasm
Pre Internet C programmers would build their own libraries (I know I had made and tuned search libraries for myself, saving time and increasing efficiency). You'd even share them, over the non-Internet networks, or sneakernet. Include your pre-built library, and use your favorite functions whenever you want.
I know how to optimize code but I am not going to waste time pre-optimizing code that hasn't already demonstrated a performance problem.
So you are the reason that Windows 10 on a modern computer is slower than DOS on a 30 year old computer. So long as you are only looking at your small part of code, performance is irrelevant.
I'd not hire you. I want someone who would consider efficiency with every task (as well as documentation and supportability, and all that). But ask someone in an interview direct questions where the applicant can guess what you want to hear, and you'll never get an honest answer.
Not really. The Cd of a bike is really bad. Weight is almost irrelevant now. Before, the energy used to accelerate that mass was "lost", but now, with regenerative braking, the mass isn't a direct loss. A 20 hp bike pushing 500 lbs is the same weight per hp as a 1500lb car with 60 hp.
Look at the modern 250s. Most of them have about the same performance (at legal speeds) as my '90s 600 did, aside from much better mileage.
E=MC^2. Yes, this means that a charged battery is heavier than an empty one, though it's so little as to be impossible to practically measure.
Most phones have user replaceable batteries, and those that don't have replaceable batteries. http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/how...
I have a 100 mpg motorbike, still faster than most cars. A Smart car hybrid with a 600cc turbo Diesel should be able to get 100-200 mpg. They aren't sitting on it, they just know nobody would buy it.
So video of the officer pooping would endanger his life. And if the police can't keep their videos from being stolen, we need new police. And it'd be trivial to make them FOIA exempt.
Yawn. Let me know when Starbucks drones can deliver a coffee to me in traffic. I don't like Starbucks, and I'd not want the drone landing on my car roof, but I'd try it once for the novelty.
So if motorized vehicles were illegal on the sidewalk, and the law is changed to allow small autonomous motorized vehicles to legally operate on the sidewalk, this action that made a previously illegal activity legal is not legalization?
I think the issue is that your dictionary is broken.
Yeah, I believe I said this before. The only similarity they have is that Japanese borrowed a bunch of words/glyphs from Chinese and then called them "Kanji". It's not that much different than English borrowing words from French or Sanskrit, except that in Japanese, all they borrowed was the glyphs and the meaning of the word, while coming up with their own, different pronunciation.
The implication that they used the kanji as they came up with the sounds is the opposite of how all languages work. Spoken precedes the writen. So japanese would have had a spoken word for "sky". Then would have stolen the Chinese word for "sky" for writing it down. Or, would have had thousands of spoken words, and no written language, then, when coming up with a language, would have borrowed the "alphabet" from neighbors.
"When would you select a recursive sort over an iterative one?"
Does that cover most of your questions, without really touching on the sorts themselves?
I've not used Radix, but looking at it, it looks to be an implementation of a selection sort. It's just slightly more efficient because it's tuned to the way computers count. You don't need to look at the whole number to know that 1xx is larger than 1. It's longer, so it must be larger, even without actually knowing the number.
Already not enough want to do it. They are down to the unemployable veterans and psychopaths. The police have spent so much time convincing people it's dangerous, that people don't want to do it, unless something is wrong with them. Wasn't that always the goal?
Why is it that you would give them no-camera-time, but not give them not-reviewed-time? Seems the best balance is to have the camera on all the time, and a "private time" button that can be pressed, to "request" that it not be reviewed.
They can have all the private time they want, but if they are in the public toilet in uniform and something happens, it's better that 1000 poops be recorded and ignored than one fatal shooting be lost.
Headphones fix the sound issues. Even cheap ones are about as good as a room with $1000+ speakers.
Same reason my mother kept a 3" B&W TV in the kitchen. Sometimes you want it on without really paying attention. The people I know who watch TV-like things on a phone do so in bed, or at a dinner table. They have a primary act they are doing at the same time. Those that are doing only one thing will be watching it on the one 50". The rest have screens, but not a traditional TV.
Most of the US still does not have more than 2 physical accesses to a property, and both of those options are ISPs. This limits the market to a choice of two monopolies, the copper monopoly, or the coax monopoly.
your claim that ISPs are monopolies
Again, your only report is more lies. Quote me. You won't, because you are lying. I've talked about the access monopolies. That is all. I've mentioned that the access monopolies are all ISPs. That the access monopolies can abuse their access monopoly in their ISP business influences ISP business. Your lie is simply a lie. You can't quote me saying that. You misinterpret and infer to pick a fight. But reality proves you wrong. A careful reading of my words proves you wrong. You are wrong, and lying about it.
The only way it could mean anything in this discussion is if you thought "coax provider" is how "ISP" is defined.
So, you understand my words, disagree with reality, then argue with reality. That's not a lie. That's simple insanity. You have no grasp on reality.
You using that statement to prove that ISPs are monopolies means just that.
No, you don't get to tell me I meant to say something other than what I said, the argue that what you deliberately misinterpret is somehow wrong.
Read again, slower this time. And don't forget to breathe.
Call my a liar for saying it, but that won't change the fact.
You are a liar for lying about what I said.
If you don't like the ISP you get with a "coax provider", use a different one.
Name a single place where you can get a different coax provider, or you are lying again. You can't say a single thing without lying again. Lying about what I said (easily provably false), then, when I demonstrated your obvious lies, you are now lying about what I "meant" when that's not what I said.
Again, "run coax" is not how ISP is defined.
I never said otherwise. Stop lying. Seems that's your only retort, "I don't like reality, so I'll lie about it." Unfortunately, reality proves you wrong. No major coax provider isn't an ISP. That I point out that reality doesn't mean I'm saying all ISPs are coax providers, or that I'm otherwise defining ISPs.
Your demand is irrelevant to the actual topic, which is not "copper line provider", but ISP.
Your deflection would be accurate if none of the line providers were ISPs. But they are all ISPs, and all monopolies (even if limited in scope of monopoly), so they all end up with monopolistic advantage in their ISP, due to a monopoly of the type of access.
Or do I need to define "monopoly" and "ISP" in monosyllabic terms so you can keep up?