The Lounge is rated Safe For Work. If you're about to post something inappropriate for a shared office environment, then don't post it. No ads, no abuse, and no programming questions. Trolling, (political, climate, religious or whatever) will result in your account being removed.
Eeeh... well, if you benchmark with a data set of size 10, the one of size 100, one of size 1000 and one of size 10,000, then we might get some indication of how it will perform with at 10,000 size data set.
But reality is that most developers who report benchmarking figures do not report for various data set sizes, in a way that lets a user make estimates of the performance will be for other data set sizes. Maybe as common: The benchmarking is done for a small, isolated part of the functionality at the core of the algorithm, with the complexity occurring at a higher level. You proudly show some core operation to be super-optimized, but then you use it in an algoritm causing the number of calls to this core operation to raise exponentially with the problem size: Then the super-speed at problem size 1 may have little value.
Understandig complexity, not only in processing time, but also in space requirements, is quite essnetial. You do not always have to calculate an exact O(n), but you should always have a rough idea of the space and time requrements if the data set size is increased by one, two or three magnitudes above the size you used making the benchmarks.
Hmm. I use algebra all the time. Calculus, never. I took 32 credit hours of 'advanced' math in college: calculus, differential equations, and matrix algebra. With only minor forays into matrix algebra when doing graphics, I haven't used any of it.
Most of that space in my brain has been recycled for old movie lines. Much, much more useful.
when I was working/playing in the field of compilers (long time ago), some set theory was used, however, when designing the different algorithms for the various treewalks (lots of tree walks and list processing) at least one eye was on the big O. Especially for one pass load and go compilers speed was essential (and at that time computers were not that fast) but optimizations were more related to clever programming than algorithms (e.g. the design of a set representation strongly depends on what you want to do with the set and its elements).
In my current (hobby) workingarea, software defined radio, both calculus and discrete mathematics are needed.
Processing samples - with lots of fourier transforms and some laplace transformations for the filters - is basically calculus oriented. Of course one needs to look at performance: you do not want to miss too many samples, but handling performance is also here more an engineering issue than an algorithmic issue.
Translating samples to bits and handling bits is - seen from a math position - different, viterbi decoding is a major component, as is Reed Solomon decoding, the latter using algebra (group theory). But also here, the final performance largely depends - next to selecting
decent algorithms - on clever programming and decent engineering.
But fortunately, for most of these "math" components there exists libraries (and one
can write its own),
But, the math, both the calculus and the discrete math, are basically fun to understand
and it is always a learning experience to write a library component for it.
OK - I get it - falling off to sleep whilst lustily counting sheep doesn't take calculus.
However, algebra is really a representation of how we solve problems all day long that have any sort of calculation. It's done as a background process. Now how far goes? Well - do you use all the subtleties of programming you were supposed to learn? Probably not, but you will still claim to have coded (at least in Q&A).
Sorry if you lost count of the sheep - there go your Welsh Pub bragging rights . . . unless you can exploit 'lost count' in an implied context..
If you're going on a bicycle holiday you might want to look at the big brother, DJI Mavic 2.
It has a built in obstacle avoidance system and ActiveTrack, which means you can set yourself as the target and it will follow you on your bicycle.
And amazingly enough it can do that not just behind you, but in front of you or at your side! I have one and it was quite a wtf moment when I started tracking my son from the side and it didn't fall back behind him but rather stayed at the side of him.
But all those cameras it uses for obstacle avoidance takes quite som space and weight, so it weighs 907g instead of 249g and requires registration in many most countries.
yeah, I need the functionality of the the DJI Mavic 2 in the smaller package typical consumer, more functionality in a smaller package please
In all seriousness, I do need to look more into this, 30 minute flight time for the smaller model may be an issue, so I would have to keep 'n' batteries charged - may be too much pfaffing around on a holiday.
I see plenty of cycle-touring on YouTube though, so I'd like to give it a shot - would also mean changing my standard route to learn/test it, I doubt the prison I pass by in close proximity would like it (actually I have an app by our Civil Aviation regulation authority which marks the prison as an obvious no-fly zone)
I saw an ad for a webdesign company but I have my doubts about the url. The name was "web one", nothing wrong with that. The url is webone.be or am I the only one who finds it funny Probably am. It's friday...
the funniest thing about this particular signature is that by the time you realise it doesn't say anything it's to late to stop reading it
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle