[0

@rak1507 Only about 400 of those

I'm typing this on my phone

Hint: The characters are identical

==

Nope

what

..?

No

And && or ||?

Still nope :p

{}

Not identical.

Because why not

Maybe ))

Curly braces

or ((

Already suggested.

++

ah

very surprised it wasn't ==

Better, but still not the most common

(for ((/)))

Haven't seen ++ yet

I barely ever use ++

++ is surprisingly rare

2500 or so

"" or ''

Yep!

Oh yeah

"" with 9090

I was just about to say that.

That's it

really??? that's more common than ++????

Considerably

What was the stats on curly braces

In many cases, one could save two bytes with ``

Only 285 {}

why is it so common though? then again idrk how to JS lol

is it for stupid stuff like ""+x

Casting to string most likely

And maybe .join("")

JS ಠ_ಠ

oh yeah true

.join`` is shorter

But then .join`` is better

ninja'd.

But it's newer

And is -- in the top 3?

No

Top three are "", =>, and ))

Not ''?

Followed by some letter digraphs like re, le, and in

I'd expect golfers to prefer '' over ""

Only 1015 of those

Wait why?

Less ink.

I prefer to golf the environment

var has only been used 10 times without a space immediately after

fewer keystrokes

' takes one, " takes two

Next, trigraph?

)=>?

Yep

)=> on its own looks a little suspect

lol

for is next

Huh, I basically never use for.

Why use for when we have .map and .forEach‽

It's only really used in older JS answers

Recursion is the new meta

""" has been used 1306 times, which is confusing

For KC, probs.

It's not valid JS though

Unless it's in a `` or '' string

Wait, no it isn't. Hm.

I was thinking Python.

@RedwolfPrograms Can you give an example of such usage?

I'll search for it

Oh

I'm not parsing the CSV correctly

So "" might actually not be the most common

All our lives…

we have been lied to

They use " in some places, and "" in others

Yeah so => is the most common

scammed

There are only 843 ""s

Ok

I have failed you all.

Do you have access to the Python answers

Not without more work

Ok

I can wait

I can send you my code if you want, but I'm not going to be making a Python corpus

@RedwolfPrograms I knew it!

sup

hope y'all are doin' well

you too

CMC: Write a program/function to find the cartesian product of an infinite number number of finite lists, write a program/function to find the cartesian product of a finite number number of infinite lists, or tell me what distinguishes basic emotion, dimensional, and psychological constructionist theories ofemotion

@user *Closes as a homework question

@user part two sounds like a pretty easy question in haskell :P

@pxeger how are u sure that's a homework question

depends what order they're generated

Finding the cartesian product of an infinite number of infinite lists is actually pretty interesting

@rak1507 pls give me teh codez im two dumb to figger it out

lol

VTC :P

@pxeger The last part appeared in my textbook, but I chose it because it's one of the questions we don't have to answer

sounds like something that someone who has a question they need to answer would say

I have proof, but you shouldn't need to hear it anyway. I'm shocked that y'all don't trust me

n * (n - 1) * (n - 2) * ... * 2 * 1 is O(n ^ 2) right?

Iterating through [n,1] is O(n), the result of that is n!. I'm not sure I understand

Oh yeah, that's just factorial.

I meant + lol

That's like $\frac{n(n+1)}{2}$

Yeah, so O(n ^ 2)

Gotta do that on 750k items

@user reads part two. what was part one again? :)

@RedwolfPrograms You're on every math teacher's hit list now :P

@ngn Why, are they the same?

@RedwolfPrograms Why are you doing O(n ^ 2) on 750 000 items

Because I can't think of an O(n)

Although I'm sure one exists

@RedwolfPrograms Surely you can do O(kn)

If you use a library function that only involves one call, you can call it O(1) :P

@StackMeter That's basically just O(n)

what are you trying to do anyway @redwolfp

Well, I have my JS corpus

Oh ok

@user computer programmers hate him: this user managed to make all his algorithms o(1) with this one weird trick!

@user no, i mean part1 seemed hard to understand at first, but after reading part2 it turned out that part1 is easier :)

But the problem is, for example, var is 919, while var is 909

So it counts var as more common

@ngn Well, part 3 is even easier, you should try it ;)

Despite 909 of those occurences being part of var

Can you look for /\bvar\b/ instead?

i don't see the problem with that bit idk what you're trying to accomplish lol. also ^

wait i just hit 10k rep

It's complicated, just ignore me :p

that took me way too long to notice

@UnrelatedString Nice!!!

thakns

@UnrelatedString congrats!!

Congrats!

@UnrelatedString damn why is everyone hitting milestones but me

hope i will someday too reach there

at my currrent rate I would do it likely in 3-4 months

@UnrelatedString also gg

@StackMeter Because Unrelated String's been here longer than you have. You'll reach 10k in a while too

At my rate, I'd be grateful to get 1k in 3-4 months

nice

@StackMeter Don't worry so much about rep

1k rep gang

@StackMeter what will be your next talk in your profile about new milestone?

you have told about Python, Python, Math

next might be...

being specifically at 10001, i now have a sudden urge to answer some binary palindrome based challenge

wait I've posted 100 questions

nice

niiiice

Nice!

@UnrelatedString Or you could downvote someone /s

@hyper-neutrino got socratic?

only 72% on socratic though :P

@Wasif constructionist theories of emotion

@ngn thats funny

@hyper-neutrino in CGCC?

yes

@hyper-neutrino 25.128

@hyper-neutrino probably between 0 and 10

actually, this might be less trivial to find than I think, due to deletion and stuff

@hyper-neutrino Including bounties?

4 ish iirc

how to calculate?

~83

divide your rep

by your posts

just take your total reputation and divide it by the sum of the number of your answers and the number of your questions

that includes bounties

don't factor out bounty gains or losses

Just got a notification for +1 rep lol

exactly 123!

mine is ~31

that's a very nice number

6697/218

@hyper-neutrino About 27.6, which doesn't make any sense whatsoever