Pseudo-Shrink: “Just reimagine yourself! Be what you need to be! Rebrand yourself as a bishop, then you’ll be happy :-)”

Ich kann an der Stelle zumindest teilweise relaten:

Ich war in einer Verteilerliste drin, die einem die Möglichkeit gibt, eine tägliche Zusammenfassung statt lauter einzelner Mails zu erhalten. Aber mein Mail-Client hat dann wohl die Mail für zu lang befunden und nur einen Teil davon angezeigt und den Rest abgeschnitten (vielleicht als Spam-Schutz oder so, keine Ahnung). Man hatte aber auch einen sehr offensichtlichen Button, um sich die komplette Mail anzeigen zu lassen. Vielleicht hat ihr Mail-Client ja etwas ähnliches gemacht und dort war der Button dann nicht so offensichtlich?

Heh,

how about forcing LaLiga to show evidence about damages? Because surely everyone who pirated their content would have paid if free streams weren’t available, right guys???

Ist eine Verzauberung, die allen eigenen Kreaturen +1/+1 gibt.

Das stimmt so nicht, ein Glorious Anthem o.ä. würde sehr wohl verhindern, dass sie stirbt.

Well, what problems are you trying to solve by having the classes all access each other’s data members? Why is that necessary?

But you just completely ignored everything I said in that comment.

Mathematically, that is precisely how O notation works, only (as I’ve mentioned) we don’t use it like that to get meaningful results. Plus, when looking at time, we can actually use O notation like normal, since computers can indeed calculate something for infinity.

Still, you’re wrong saying that isn’t how it works in general, which is really easy to see if you look at the actual definition of O(g(n)).

Oh, and your computer crashing is a thing that could happen, sure, but that actually isn’t taken into account for runtime analysis, because it only happens with a certain chance. If it would happen after precisely three days every time, then you’d be correct and all algorithms would indeed have an upper bound for time too. However it doesn’t, so we can’t define that upper bound as there will always be calculations breaking it.

It’s very pedantic, but he does have a point. Similar to how you could view memory usage as O(1) regardless of the algorithm used, just because a computer doesn’t have infinite memory, so it’s always got an upper bound on that.

Only that’s not helpful at all when comparing algorithms, so we disregard that quirk and assume we’re working with infinite memory.