FishFace

Re: Re: Re: Fwd: Re: FWD: Re: LOL!!!11

You think I can remember to set that?! Well look at you, miss functional adult!

That’s having wet laundry sit for most of the day, which the person above already said they didn’t want to do.

Maybe you need to accept our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, into your heart, to cleanse such sinful thinking!

(j/k if it’s not obvious)

Hmm, fair enough but I would say latex gloves and latex condoms are equally prominent (the latter obviously not helpful as far as avoiding dodgy results on Google)

That’s true but it’s also not really worth very much.

I’m sorry what? What about:

• Shoes
• Gloves
• Tyres
• Elastic bands
• Balloons

All of these are made (partly) from natural (i.e. latex) rubber.

Well I just had to work it out again myself and you’re right. I dunno what scenario I was thinking of that had worse complexity and whether it was really due to dynamic arrays; I just remember getting asked about it in some interview and somehow the answer ended up being “use a linked list and the time complexity goes down to linear” /shrug

Thanks for the correction!

Don’t do that to me!

I’m tired, boss

Latex is just a kind of rubber, and a material produced by some plants used for making rubber. Sure, if you’re not careful when googling, you can get dodgy results with “latex” in the terms, but that seems to me to be of a different calibre.

Is this just a reference to The GIMP or are there other common apps with dodgy names? I’m struggling to think of any.

https://skiesofarcadia.fandom.com/wiki/Pinta's_Quest

Also The GIMP is not named after a slur, don’t be ridiculous.

Aaaaaaaaaa

No, anti-reflective coatings are not matte. They work by producing destructive interference in a target band of wavelengths right at the surface of the coated material from front and rear reflections. Because the effect is wavelength specific, they tend to tint the colour of the reflection, as well, allowing you to tell when they’ve been applied.

Yes, but dynamic resize typically means copying all of the old data to the new destination, whereas a linked list does not need to do this. The time complexity of reading a large quantity of data into a linked list is O(N), but reading it into an array can end up being O(N^2) or at best O(N log N).

You can make the things in your list big chunks so that you don’t pay much penalty on cache performance.

I thought of another good example situation: a text buffer for an editor. If you use an array, then on large documents inserting a character at the beginning of the document requires you to rewrite the rest of the array, every single character, to move everything up. If you use a linked list of chunks, you can cap the amount of rewriting you need to do at the size of a single chunk.

What would you use if you don’t know how much space you were going to need in advance, and you were gonna only read the data once for every time the structure got created.

Not really. It has to be enough brighter than the reflection that it’s not visually disturbing. And that criterion depends on what’s displayed: a high contrast image is much more robust than a bright single colour which is much more robust than a dark single colour.

Screens nowadays have anti-reflective coatings to make the brightness of a reflection far, far less than the actual light source if you looked directly at it.

Not a shitpost?

I said that explicitly so that you wouldn’t think it was some kind of gotcha, so I don’t know why that was your reply. Not all dictionaries agree with MW.

It’s called an attributive noun, by the way.

I feel like the fact that you aren’t subscribing to “the salt is table” usage, nor coming up with any nouns that are not adjectives, indicates you also don’t really think that attributive nouns are adjectives. So let’s disagree with Merriam-Webster together! Yay!