|
Hi fellow members,
Is it only me or there are some problems with sending CP newsletter email?
I haven't received any since past Wednesday
It's hard to live without it 
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah I'm not getting it either all of a sudden and now what am I supposed to do? work? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Me three. I was waiting to report it this week as I figured they might have other things going on.
[Edit] - Todays just showed up. So maybe I just looked to early.
modified 15-Jan-24 11:49am.
|
|
|
|
|
it has been hit or miss for me for a month or so now.
To err is human to really elephant it up you need a computer
|
|
|
|
|
I also had a lack of newsletters. I did receive one this morning, though.
|
|
|
|
|
Got today's newsletter few hours ago...
Life is beautiful again 
|
|
|
|
|
It should be back to normal (whatever that means) today.
It's been...a week.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I asked the candidate for his greatest weakness.
He said "Interpreting the semantics of a question, but ignoring the pragmatics."
This took me a bit off guard, so I asked him "Can you give me an example?"
He said "Yes, I could."
I handed him his coat after that.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: I handed him his coat after that.
Why? The answer contains requested example.
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed. If you ask smartarse questions, be prepared for a smartarse answer.
It's obviously the candidate expected this -imo pointless and Dilbert-esque- question and prepared accordingly.
I'd have taken that answer as a reason to put the candidate on my shortlist, providing the tech skills were up to snuff.
|
|
|
|
|
Interviewer: Tell me your biggest weakness.
Candidate: My biggest weakness is ... my inability to determine/decide my biggest weakness.
(Implied meaning: I have so many weaknesses, that i cannot decide which is the biggest among them).
|
|
|
|
|
The candidate's witty response reveals a self-awareness about the nuanced aspects of communication. His ability to navigate semantics and pragmatics with humor showcases a clever approach to handling interview questions.
modified 15-Jan-24 9:44am.
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 940 3/6
⬛⬛⬛🟨⬛
⬛🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 940 5/6
⬜🟩⬜⬜⬜
⬜🟩⬜⬜⬜
⬜🟩🟩⬜⬜
⬜🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 940 6/6
⬜⬜⬜⬜🟨
⬜⬜⬜🟨⬜
🟨🟨🟨⬜🟨
⬜🟩🟩🟩🟩
⬜🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Just managed.
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 940 3/6
⬛🟨⬛⬛⬛
🟨⬛⬛🟨⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Nearly too many options ...
Wordle 940 6/6*
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜🟩🟩⬜🟨
⬜🟩🟩🟩🟩
⬜🟩🟩🟩🟩
⬜🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 940 4/6*
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜🟨🟨⬜⬜
🟨🟨🟨🟨⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Happiness will never come to those who fail to appreciate what they already have. -Anon
And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music. -Frederick Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 940 5/6
⬜🟩⬜🟨⬜
🟨🟩⬜⬜⬜
⬜🟩🟩⬜⬜
⬜🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Wordle 940 3/6
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬛🟨⬛🟩⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Ok, I have had my coffee, so you can all come out now!
|
|
|
|
|
I have been using HASH Tables for many applications.
1. Keyword lookup for command line processing
2. Generic name lookup tables of names, etc.
3. Substitution for binary tree name lookup that do not require a minimum guaranteed lookup time
I like HASH tables because they are easy to implement,
but the key question is what HASH function does one use.
Here is one I use:
unsigned int HASH_Value( char *name )
{
unsigned long int hashval;
int i;
hashval = 0;
for( i = 0; i < HASH_MAX_NAME_SIZE; i++ )
{
if( name[i] == '\0' ) break;
hashval += name[i] * i + 1;
}
return( (unsigned int)(hashval)%HASH_MAX_TABLE_SIZE );
/* traditional hash function
for( hashval = 0; *name != '\0'; name++ ) hashval = *name + 31 * hashval;
return ( hashval % HASH_MAX_TABLE_SIZE );
*/
}
It works for me, what works for you?
Please ignore any typos. Just looking for discussion on the topic.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
The important point is that there is no universal "best" hash function. What makes a "good" hash (i.e. minimal collisions, not too costly to compute) depends very much on the nature of the data you are hashing. A good hash for peoples' full names may not do too well on their SSNs or phone numbers for example. And of course, the size of your hash table has a huge influence on performance. There are lots of good discussions (and some not so good) to be found if you search things like "best hash function".
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Thanx for quick response.
This is a good start.
Agreed:
"No universal "best" hash function"
"Minimize collisions"
"lots of discussions on "best hash function", etc
"What is nature of the data to be hashed?", etc
However, I suspect that
google uses proprietary hashing techniques
caching searches for future searches, "who knows",
collision mitigation,
daisy chaining (nested hash tables, etc. my terminology)
I suspect this subject maybe a lot deeper than the search for the standard "best hash function".
hence my proposal for a discussion. It may come to nothing, but it's out there.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
After searching for a good hash for strings, I settled on the following:
uint32_t string_hash(const char* s)
{
uint64_t hash = 0;
auto size = strlen(s);
for(size_t i = 0; i < size; ++i)
{
hash = s[i] + (hash << 16) + (hash << 6) - hash;
}
return hash;
}And then you truncate the result to be a valid index into your hash table.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
