The extraverts had the tables turned on them in 2020 and have been itchy for a captive audience ever since. It’s a drug fix for these people, nothing more. I’ve skipped every cross country in-person team building gibberish since 2020 and will continue to do so.
Yes, if a dog attacks you can shoot it. That’s true pretty much everywhere.
Why in the fuck is this considered world news?
Her dissenting opinion is here. It’s quite thorough, and while reasonable people could disagree on each point (myself included), I didn’t find anything overtly biased in her analysis. Paragraphs 22 - 30 are the bulk of her analysis. Chiefly she cited 3 concerns:
Key seems valid. I’ll check all the integers for you to see how accurate it is.
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.
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.
Hamas will refuse.