Of course, it definitively uses decompression, but still impressive. Plus the music is also rendered. There are is so much maths and cleverness in this... Do not escape reality : improve reality !

BillWoodruff wrote: What I'd like to see is a radical extension of Attributes in C# You always did strike me as a radical! The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.

Kent Sharkey wrote: Developers in the software industry rely on extracting relevant information from Google and other search engines to maximize their efficiency. Not to mention the Q&A, oh... wait :sigh: :sigh: M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.

Well, I've been reading it daily for years, and I'm sure I've missed out on more than the first 5 years. If it's a competition, you win... :-)

A hash may be invertible if it contains at least as many bits as the input (though it is not is major usage where this is geenrally the reverse). But the arguments are the same: you just want a perfectly flattened distribution of bits in the result, and for using it as an encryption, you must ensure that there will NEVER be any collision (so the distribution is almost perfectly flattened with collision lists for each hash value being either 1 or 0, a property that a good hash algorithm should have as well when their input has the same (or smaller) bitsize as their output. But actually a good hash will want to have this flattened distribution even if you truncate the hash value to less bits (the same will be true if you use it as an invertible encryption that must be secure, i.e. where you cannot guess the decryption key if you konw some pairs of clear-text input and resulting "hash" value, which should still be invertible but only when you know the decryption key or when you can generate it easily because you know the encryption key). Many encryption algorothms also depend a the existence of a "securely strong" hash key (at least to generate the encryption/decryption keys), and the inversible operation of encrypting/decrypting may as well be used as a hashing function (once you give it one of the keys). Note that encrypting very short messages even with a very strong encryption algorithm with long keys causes a major problem because the result is no longer a flat distribution; that's why strong encryptions require padding those messages with enough bits so that they become longer than the minimum length required for the keys. Such padding are not random, but they cannot be static (e.g. all zeroes), but should be generated by a strong hash: very short messages will then become undistibuishable from long messages that have the desired flattened distribution of bits in their encrypted patterns.

Micronaut here (Microverse Student) To get the complexity of this algorithm is actually quite simple, just check if there is an existing nested for loops and if those for loops actually depend on the input. For example: for(... input.length) { for(...input2.length) { } } this code's complexity will be the length of input1 * length of input2. and if they are the same, it will be the length^2. which is what we note by n².

This is something I can attest to regarding my personal projects. When I get carried away with fancy design, it prevents me from actually creating something that works! The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.

I feel you! I LOVE creating the tools and I LOVE the satisfaction of customers using my tools, but actually using my tools myself is BORING. Check out my toy... BuilderHMI[^]

You need to specify the problem more clearly. Does everyone at the table have two neighbors, or do the two people at each end only have one neighbour? This may or may not affect the answer. Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.

Permission to shout "Bravo" at an annoyingly loud volume, sir. you nailed it "The complexity introduced by those who know their own tools deeply, and who in turn forget that we do not care about their tools, is staggering."

LR(k) isn't realistic for k>1. The parse tables are too big, which is why nobody does it. There is GLR parsing which overcomes that at the cost of non-determinism. It's a monster to use. Furthermore, LL(k) is far easier for the end user to code against, since it's top down and not bottom up. I'm actually attempting to use my LR(1) table gen code to help me make LL(k) for k>1 because my LR(1) code already generates a state machine for all the symbols in a grammar. I think I can use that state machine to resolve ambiguities I encounter at k=1. Real programmers use butterflies

Kent Sharkey wrote: I need a translation from Bafflegab bullsh1ttish FTFY M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.

:) Don't mess with me north man. Today is Saturday and Saturday is wine day. Besides, after my third glass I become a black belt in Kung Fu.

Yeah, for C++ for a number of reasons it's best to use a hand written parser. Real programmers use butterflies

One thing I forgot to mention - if the rule is "no machine with direct internet access is allowed to connect to the database", then standard reverse proxy between the internet exposed endpoint and the "real" webserver will do the trick.

So... we will get a pile of crap results for a search... nice. But, only because they are free from algorithms fed with user data doesn't mean that they don't continue collecting, processing and selling user data using other possibilities. M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.

You included expected results vs. actual results. You included actual exception. Well done :thumbsup: Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.

Kent Sharkey wrote: Unless you go with the correct answer - "it depends" Kind of related[^] M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.

I like A*. I've build pathfinding with it for an AR HoloLens application. Easy to build, easy to scale, easy to tweak. It's also kinda crappy. Just look at the AI in Red Alert 2: it's serviceable but never amazing.

Full stack classes in Pune development refers to the event of each frontal end ( customer side) and back end ( garçon side) corridor of internet operation. Full Mound internet Developers Full mound internet inventors have the inflexibility to style complete internet operations and websites. They work on the frontend, backend, word, and debugging of internet operation or websites.