It's the opposite of C&C3, which had a good campaign but the theme was a step back from the scifi of Tiberian Sun. Especially the GDI/NOD units were way less futuristic, and the alien ones were a bit too similar to each other in style. The cutscenes were also mostly boring compared to earlier games.

If I recall correctly, the expansion pack for C&C3 was much more interesting in these aspects, but the gameplay suffered.

Also, memory access is constant time only to some upper limit allowed by the hardware, which requires significant changes to the implementation when the data does not fit the system memory. So, the hash algorithm will not stay O(n) once you go past the available memory.

The sorting algorithms do not suffer from these complexities quite as much, and similar approaches can be used with data sets that do not fit a single system's memory. The sorting-based algorithms will likely win in the galactically large cases.

Edit: Also, once the hash table would need to grow beyond what the hash function can describe (e.g. beyond 64 bit integers), you need to grow the function's data type. This is essentially a hidden log(n) factor, as the required length of the data type is log(n) of the maximum data size.

Based on a quick Firefox performance report on the minified source code, most of the time seems to be spent in functionality looking like frame handling. There are some signs of time calculations.

One educated guess would be that something in frame time calculations goes off, possibly due to restricted time resolution to prevent timing related fingerprinting. This would cause next frame computation to start immediately instead of after the intended timeout.

To get the layout correct, you need to reverse engineer details down to Word's numerical accuracy so that content appears at the correct position in more complex cases. People like creating brittle documents where a pixel of difference can break the layout and cause content to misalign and appear on separate pages.

This will be a major problem for cases like the text saying "look at the above picture" but the picture was not anchored properly and floated to the next page due to rendering differences compared to a specific version of Word.

From purely technical point of view, the question would be rather irrelevant as the distinction between a button and link is mostly how a human perceives it, it does not matter for the program.

This is likely an explanation for the awkwardness that the author mentions feeling of this implementation, and is supported by it not making sense to open this kind of a "link" in a new tab (because it does not go anywhere).

If you interpret "unique" to mean that two puzzles that lead to the same solution count as one, the answer would be equal to the number of completed grids. Just remove one number and you get a partially completed grid, and there cannot be more.

The interpretation you mean is probably how many partially completed sudoku grids have only a single solution instead of multiple, which leads to a much more interesting question.

You can often see where the writer put the most effort and thought by just seeing how they wrote it. This can help analyzing a codebase considerably.

If everything is normalized, you lose those valuable cues.

See https://bugs.mojang.com/browse/MC-149060 "Villagers "spam" doors by opening and closing them really fast"

Or https://bugs.mojang.com/browse/MC-69281?jql=text%20~%20%22do... to see the 6000+ bug reports related to doors.

Or watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiEq0bJcAz0 "Villager door spam"

  # Linux hard mode
  set -e