I used to do "one one-thousand, two one-thousand, etc"
But then found it was better to so l switch it to "one-thousand one, one-thousand two, etc" because then the count matches the time closer. In the first, when you say the count, you are actually one second earlier. Eg, "two" marks the end of the first second and the start of the second one. But saying the number after (one-thousand, steamboat, mississippi, or whatever) means you can just say the number you last said for an accurate second count.
Sometimes I wonder if people really do affect their environment with their thoughts and attitudes and maybe people who believe in ghosts but don't believe in technology can see ghosts and have their tech fail in unexplainable ways, but the presence of someone who understands and believes in it changes the way it works and doesn't see paranormal shit because they don't believe in it.
Like my ex believed in paranormal stuff and apparently experienced some herself and also had her tech stuff fail spectacularly in ways I couldn't replicate if I tried but would otherwise work fine for me.
Though I do have a feeling that if their activity on the PC was recorded, it would actually turn out to be just them lying about (or not even knowing) what they did and the behavior of the tech being as logical as usual, given their actions. Or they just ran into a rare race condition and the correct actions fail like 0.3% of the time.
But it would be more interesting if it was the other thing.
I realize you jest, but I bet she did actually debug them by running through them by hand. I've found and fixed many bugs via code review without actually running into the bug during a run. Plus wtf else was there to do in the 1800s? Debugging might have been relatively highly entertaining in those days.
Just another example of how the most anti-gay people must be in the closet because anyone who isn't should immediately know from their own experience that being tempted by other men says more about the one being tempted than the one "tempting" by just being there.
So these people that hear this shit don't think anything unusual about it, which implies to me that they can relate to feeling tempted and are thus in the closet themselves.
Of course, they (the followers) might just not be using any critical thought, which is why I'm going to keep saying it and do the critical thinking for them. If you hate gays that much, why do you follow people that are so obviously gay (or bi) but in denial?
Or if being gay is a choice, why don't more people who don't have a problem with it make that choice?
Yeah, I think the vast majority weren't in that dumb of places, though I bet there were a ton of smaller injuries that didn't make the news, because the whole point of the trend was to do it in shocking or obnoxious places (at least for the ones trying to go viral). But I'd guess the majority of people who did it weren't trying to go viral but just trying to fit in and applied some common sense to it.
I think they are referring to people who did it in incredibly stupid places. There were planking fatalities, falls from cliffs and balconies. Darwin award winners.
That assumes SetTimeout() is O(1), but I suspect it is O(log(n)), making the algorithm O(n*log(n)), just like any other sort.
Did some looking into the specifics of SetTimeout() and while it uses a data structure with theoretical O(1) insertion, deletion, and execution (called a time wheel if you want to look it up), the actual complexity for deletion and execution is O(n/m) (if values get well distributed across the buckets, just O(n) if not) where m is the number of buckets used. For a lot of use cases you do get an effective O(1) for each step, but I don't believe using it as a sorting engine would get the best case performance out of it. So in terms of just n (considering m is usually constant), it'll be more like O(n²).
And it's actually a bit worse than that because the algorithm isn't just O(n/m) on execution. It needs to check each element of one bucket every tick of whatever bucket resolution it is using. So it's actually non-trivially dependent on the wait time of the longest value. It's still a constant multiplier so the big O notation still says O(n) (just for the check on all ticks), but it might be one of the most misleading O(n)'s I've ever seen.
Other timer implementations can do better for execute and delete, but then you lose that O(1) insertion and end up back at O(n*log(n)), but one that scales worse than tree sort because it is literally tree sort plus waiting for timeouts.
Oh and now, reading your comment again after reading about SetTimeout(), I see I misunderstood when I first read it and thought you meant it was almost as fast as bucket sort, but see now you meant it basically is bucket sort because of that SetTimeout() implementation. Bucket sort best case is O(n), worst case is O(n²), so I guess I can still do decent analysis lol.
Cleaning can still help if it only slow charges (if you mean it used to be able to use high wattage ones).
Gunk prevents a strong connection, which can mess with the handshake. Charger will say, "yeah, I can fast charge, check out these amps!" but not all of it gets through and the case will decide the charger is a liar and just go with slow charging. Don't assume that something getting through at all means the connection is fine because USB has fallback options when conditions are sub-optimal.
Soft is good because you want the cleaning tool to break before it can apply enough force to break or scratch the contact. Use a cleaning solution to soften the gunk instead. Doesn't have to be a part of a kit, just make sure it's safe for metals, like isopropyl alcohol.
I would not use metal simply because its hardness is going to be similar or higher than the hardness of the contacts themselves, which means there's a chance it could scratch or break the contact entirely.
The specs of saliva that go along with blowing corrode the contacts over time, so it is actually better to find an alternative with a soft brush and non/less-acidic cleaning solution.
Nintendo sold cartridge cleaning kits in the 90s (maybe even the 80s).
Lol you just saying that made me nervous. Using a staple would make it easy to accidentally break a contact off entirely, and I'm not sure if there are any consequences for shorting any of the USB pins to each other. Even a twist tie would be better, since it has another material to do the rubbing and the metal is less stiff than a staple.
Edit: there's another comment further down saying the risk of a short isn't an issue, but I'd still avoid using a staple just because of the hardness probably being higher than the contact.
You don't want to be too rough on it. There's electrical contacts that can get blocked by dust, lint, and crap, so cleaning helps, but the contacts themselves aren't that thick, so you don't want to wear them down too much while cleaning. A cleaning solution helps loosen up everything with less force and a softer brush/pad is less likely to knock bits of contact off.
So just be careful because that brush might be like blowing in nintendo cartridges (clearing dust but leaving saliva specs that would wear the contacts), where it helps in the short term but makes things worse in the long term (resulting in more blowing and an acceleration of the process).
You realize your dentist doesn't actually have any authority over you, right? Dentists who are friends (heh) of assassins notwithstanding.