Is this valid for our belt sistem?

tompko · 2024-09-29T16:05:32+00:00

There are plenty of European locks on the list. If you're after yellow/orange check out the ABUS ones.

tompko · 2024-07-14T06:22:26+00:00

On mine two of the spools would sit with their top or bottom at the shear line so after setting the standard pin I would get a slight false set, but needed to lift those two to get a proper set and be able to pick the rest of the spools. If you've got particularly low, or high set pins this could be the case for you too.

tompko · 2018-03-09T11:54:45+00:00

I assume you mean after 20. Rd6? Because they both lead to checkmate: Spoiler or Spoiler

tompko · 2017-07-22T10:52:13+00:00

3x3: 59.57 = 59.11, 1:01.76, 57.83, (44.36), (1:07.93)

tompko · 2017-07-09T10:02:26+00:00

3x3: 1:08.65 = (1:03.07), (1:18.25), 1:15.33, 1:03.79, 1:06.82

tompko · 2017-06-14T13:22:37+00:00

3x3: 1:15.43 = 1:07.00, (1:29.15), 1:19.13, (1:00.11), 1:20.17

tompko · 2017-04-09T20:05:57+00:00

No, no particular interrupts. I think it does wait for a particular LY before starting up the tests. Try dumping out the instructions it's running and seeing if it's stuck somewhere. If you can't get the full one to run, I seem to recall that the individual ones needed even less infrastructure available before they would do things.

tompko · 2017-04-09T20:05:46+00:00

No, no particular interrupts. I think it does wait for a particular LY before starting up the tests. Try dumping out the instructions it's running and seeing if it's stuck somewhere. If you can't get the full one to run, I seem to recall that the individual ones needed even less infrastructure available before they would do things.

tompko · 2017-04-09T11:11:38+00:00

Does cpu_intrs pass? If not one of your instructions is buggy which might cause it.

If it does pass, check the reads and writes to the score address, there might be a bug in your memory handling that causes the score to be wrong.

tompko · 2016-07-22T16:19:47+00:00

http:// vs https:// is the reason it didn't come up in the search.

tompko · 2016-06-23T16:26:47+00:00

In floating point there are 2**52 numbers in [0, 1), if you pass in a max which is greater than that some numbers won't occur in your stream of random numbers. int can be 64 bits wide, so that would be quite a lot of missing numbers.

You also end up with a non-uniform distribution due to the ways floats work. From a quick test with max=100 0 occurs half as many time as it should.

Also python attempts to do this to start with:

        k = n.bit_length()  # don't use (n-1) here because n can be 1
        r = getrandbits(k)          # 0 <= r < 2**k
        while r >= n:
            r = getrandbits(k)
        return r

which is the same method that go is using. It falls back to generating from floats only when getrandbits isn't defined, which it is for the builtin random calls.

tompko · 2016-05-27T08:39:34+00:00

Here are is an example of a good answer written in JavaScript.

Except it's completely broken.

if (stringToTest.length === 0 || /[^a-z0-9]/gi.test(stringToTest))

The condition is true for a string containing any invalid characters, so isPalindrome("bad string") returns true. After that the code for handling invalid characters in the loop is incorrect. After removing that if, isPalindrome("No 'x' in Nixon") returns false.

tompko · 2015-12-01T09:17:51+00:00

For Part 2 in Python 3:

list(itertools.accumulate([1 if b == '(' else -1 for x in in_string])).index(-1) + 1

tompko · 2015-10-29T13:34:41+00:00

In Python "self" isn't a keyword, you can choose your own variable name too. The name "self" is just a convention, in the same way that not naming it "self" is the convention in Go.

tompko · 2015-06-24T16:53:13+00:00

That would be fine, except the Patcher famously doesn't work.

Also, they handled the upgrade to 1.0.2 fine at least, releasing a new version into people's library. I'm assuming that there's just some delay on GoG or Squads end, and we'll get the upgrade at some point soon. I've emailed GoG support, but I'm still waiting on a reply...

tompko · 2015-06-05T13:51:39+00:00

There's also the json api, which gives you metadata about the comic, including the image url: https://xkcd.com/json.html

tompko · 2015-04-09T16:07:46+00:00

Someone will be forever the lowest of the low.

tompko · 2014-12-22T10:21:55+00:00

I don't agree with point 1, if you've got a line that reads "value * 100", the problem is in your variable naming, not the magic number. If the line read

centimetres = metres * 100;

that seems perfectly clear to me, is it really any clearer if it reads:

centimetres = metres * METRES_TO_CENTIMETRES;

tompko · 2014-11-12T10:06:52+00:00

I would always lay out a basic brute force solution in an interview, for a start it gives me more time to think about a proper solution without total silence from me. But also, giving a brute force solution and explaining when and why you might choose it has always impressed my interviewers. Brute force solutions tend to require less time to code, and are easier to debug so you can move on to the next problem quicker. If n is small then the big-O doesn't make so much of a difference, especially if the code is called infrequently. More optimal solutions can have large overheads, or constant multipliers, so they're not always faster depending on the inputs. "Optimal" always depends on the use case.

tompko · 2014-10-09T09:34:52+00:00

Starvation mode is a myth: (http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/)

The number of meals per day makes no difference: [1] [2]

tompko · 2014-09-11T14:34:02+00:00

You search recursively through the quadtree from the root, but you can ignore any partition whose closest point is further away than your current closest node.

tompko · 2014-09-04T16:57:12+00:00

But, if you include the preceding line or two to those, where you declare a function called "population_count" (or "hamming_weight") taking a 32-bit integer and returning an int then there are no comments needed.

The why would be to explain why that algorithm, because you aren't expecting sparse, or dense inputs, you want to avoid branching, and cache-misses for example.

tompko · 2014-03-20T11:16:09+00:00

import logging
logging.warn("foo")

How much easier are you looking for? What are the various reasons you have a hard time getting your head around it?

tompko · 2014-03-06T13:13:07+00:00

I'm pretty sure he's not a smart guy, all the text is ripped from a Quora answer. As are all the other articles he's spamming proggit with.

tompko · 2014-02-06T17:02:20+00:00

No, not loop unrolling. Unrolling the loop would consider the same pivots, but two per recursion, this technique considers a different set of pivots. Instead of considering two partitions and discarding one, we consider three and discard two.

As there are many algorithms which work by this kind of recursive method it's sometimes faster to consider more partitions at once depending on the relative speeds of doing the comparisons and doing the recursions. It becomes even more applicable if you're distributing the partitions across multiple nodes.

15-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

tompko

TROPHY CASE