Sounds like both a lack of trust and communication between you and the team.
> If you have better metrics or management skills than what everyone in the world has figured out, myself and many others would gladly adopt these approaches.
Oh boy...
edit: One issue might be they fear that bad news will lead to a knee jerk reaction that gets them or their teammates fired. They should feel comfortable to encounter problems and openly discuss them in the open with out fear of repercussions. In fact, I would argue this is one of the major advantages of a team; pooling collective knowledge and abilities. If people fear honest communication then the performance of the team is impacted. The manager has the greatest ability to fix this, IMHO...
Call your credit card company. They can block a merchant, perform a chargeback, and/or issue a new credit card number. I don’t know the rules for a debit card, but you’ll at least be able to get a new debit card number.
FWIW, actually, one thing I learned in practice that’s wasn’t highlighted in my Algorithms course: overhead (constant C) matters. You can feel good about yourself for choosing an algorithm that scales in O(lg n) time, but if your you ignore the cost of each operation (C) you might be slow.
For example:
1. When n is small, an array is almost always better. Arrays have very little overhead compared to even a hash map.
2. Algorithms with the same O() may still have significant differences at runtime and might be balanced differently between insert and search times. AVL trees take longer than Red Black trees to insert, but might be 1 level better in height. That means one less access. Useful for a routing table, for example.
So, in summary, if your looking at other people’s code and see lots of arrays don’t get too smug…n is usually small.
a good example of this is Fibonacci heaps. on paper they're great, but they result in egregious pointer chasing, while radix heaps are less flexible but can be backed by a contiguous array.
weirdly, in all my recent algorithm work, only the big-O has mattered (or it's all just NP-hard or even EXPTIME.)
I've removed one and never heard anything. I doubt they even check if it's functioning unless they are attempting to repossess the car. As I recall, some modules have the ability to unlock and start the car as well (I think; it was years ago when I found one and researched it...)
We leased a new Jeep Cherokee from a Miami dealership some time ago. It was a company car and was financed. Some months later we noticed the odometer was blinking constantly so we took it in for service to a different dealer. The tech pulled it out and told us about it. He said they didn't do it at that dealership, but some do it.
It was just hanging off the OBD2 port, so if you're concerned about it when leasing or buying a new car then just make sure to check that port.
I still have it in a box somewhere. I'm not sure if there's anything interesting that can be done with it...
In Colorado a law was recently passed to deal with this. According to [0]:
"During its initial committee hearing, sponsoring state Rep. Mary Young, D-Greeley, said allegations of neglect or lack of supervision have been on the rise in Colorado, even as the number of substantiated cases are dropping. In 2019, there were 3,854 allegations of lack of supervision; 82%, or 3,169, were unfounded, she said."
Not to toot our Colorado horn too loudly here but I really feel like this state, my home state, is one of the few sane places left in the US (but seriously please don't move here haha).
It’s bittersweet, don’t you think? On the one hand, it’s good that such a law was supported at the highest levels. However, in truly sane places, there are no such laws because the police would never think to involve themselves in such a matter in the first place.
Some social norms have clearly disintegrated, but now there is a law to patch it up.
The reasons why the social norm disintegrated in the first place remain unresolved.
A few other states passed similar laws, including Oklahoma and Texas. Seems absurd that we need to pass laws that let children play outside unsupervised.
Presumably the City of Los Angles isn't confronting the problem due to an unwillingness to spend funds. If she is successful, the cost of doing nothing will increase. So her goal isn't to throw them out, it's to force the city's hand.
Yes. Back of envelope, took physics in college many years ago[1] analysis:
E=mc^2, or energy = mass * (speed of light)^2. According to Wikipedia a candle can produce 77 watts of energy "combined." I guess that means 77 joules (1 watt = 1 J/s). So we have:
77 = m * (299792458)^2
Solving for m via Wolfram Alpha:
m = 11 / 12839369696240252
Which is in grams. That's a _very_ small amount, but it's not zero.
edit:
[1] If I'm being honest, I got E=mc^2 from watching the Twilight Zone as a kid, not college physics.
> According to Wikipedia a candle can produce 77 watts of energy "combined." I guess that means 77 joules (1 watt = 1 J/s).
Watts is energy/time. 77 watts for a candle sounds about right. That means it is producing 77 joules per second. The amount of energy released by burning such a candle is therefore proportional to how long it burns, which is proportional to its mass. The thing you are looking for is the specific energy, listed as 45 MJ/kg upthread. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26973765 for the rest of the calculation.
Kind of pedantic but I've never understood why it's E=mc^2 and not E=Δmc^2. In Einsteins original paper he derives the equation with a delta m: a change of mass corresponds to some amount of energy. To me that is different than to say that a whole mass corresponds to a some amount of energy. I've never seen a justification why the delta can be omitted and why the equation still would hold true.
There isn't a delta because E=mc^2 isn't just describing a reaction, or a conversion. It is describing the fundamental equivalence between mass and energy. It is true even in situations where ΔE and Δm aren't defined.
"It is describing the fundamental equivalence between mass and energy" I agree that this is widely agreed upon when referring to E=mc^2. It's almost a dogma by this point. But the derivation Einstein used to come up with his equation doesn't actually support said dogma. I'd really like to understand how this "fundamental equivalence" came about and the proof behind it, or if it's just dogma. E=mc^2 is a lot more profound than E=delta m * c^2. IIRC Einstein in the final sentence of his paper tries to generalize his result and jumps on the E=mc^2 train without backing it up.
I think you could say Einstein proposed the fundamental equivalence between mass and energy as a hypothesis and there has been much evidence since. Apparently it was based partly on a proposed symmetry between space and time. Einstein being Einstein probably had some deep reasoning behind it which was not necessarily all put down in that paper.
I would assume it has to do with relativistic mass, which used to be somewhat commonly used (m used for relativistic mass, m_0 for rest or invariant mass), but which is now disfavoured. For m as relativistic mass, E = mc^2 holds.
Physics is usually pretty rigorous. In the context of science for a general audience, or printing pretty T-shirts, I get why it's omitted. I just find it funny that when it comes to E=mc^2 physics suddenly lack some rigour even in the college physics classes I've taken. It's probably OK to skip it I'm just curious as to why. I don't think I've ever seen the delta mentioned except in Einstein's original paper.
While both RB and AVL trees grow at O(lg N) height, the constant for AVL trees is smaller. This means that for a large AVL tree it might be 1 or 2 layers shorter than the equivalent RB tree. This comes at the expense of a higher constant for insertion and deletion.
In certain contexts saving a node transversal will have a meaningful impact on performance.
