Graipher

Nice. Not as much improvement as I was hoping for, though, but I guess that's why we measure. I'm always surprised by the overhead of set over a simple array.

sorry, only just saw that each value is already a min of a whole run.

baseline is a bit pointless here and you could take the min or mean of your multiple timings. I would also consider ordering them by runtime.

Would be interesting to see how much better the set performs if you do seen_add = seen.add before the loop and use that to avoid the costly attribute lookups.

@DerKommissar Never crossed my mind...

@DerKommissar I know, that's why I didn't edit the message / ping them myself afterwards

@DerKommissar Thanks, I knew I had forgotten something :D

Not sure why y'all voted to close this question: codereview.stackexchange.com/q/243530/98493

@Peilonrayz Thanks for taking a look. I was starting to doubt myself ^^

@Peilonrayz You there? I have a problem understanding if I'm too dumb to understand the code or if the OP does not understand how Python works: codereview.stackexchange.com/questions/242617

codereview.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10480/… Question on how to most effectively review Jupyter notebooks on Meta (asked by me). Anyone wants to have a look?

I would have expected a featured Meta post, though...

@Peilonrayz That's more specific than I expected :D

@Mast 6! Related, when did the UI for the Close Votes change?

@Mast Especially because that question for once does not have a bad description. Informative and to the point.

@Peilonrayz Well, since you recently asked a question, hopefully at least one? :P

@Mast Didn't even see that, yeah

@Duga Should be fine, it's just fixing a typo in the example data provided.

@Duga It's just some formatting of the testcases, no worries

@Duga It's just formatting, relax

@Peilonrayz Thanks :)

Unrelated, is anyone going to take pity and cast the fifth reopen vote on this question (which, full disclosure, I already answered): codereview.stackexchange.com/questions/226586/… The question has been edited since closure to contain more background information on what the code is supposed to do.

@Peilonrayz While I think that might qualify as maintainer of the code, I would argue the OP clearly does not know why the code is written the way it is since that seems to be the question they are asking.

@Mast Hehe, true. Still contemplating whether I should stop at 2000 like Stephen Rauch or just keep on going :D

@Mast Yeah, it feels like it has been piling up slightly, recently. I did 7 today and like 14 yesterday...

@Mast Welcome back(?)!

@Duga I think its fine (but then again, I would say that, I guess) I added the HTML/CSS from the posted codepen link and made it into a snippet.

@Duga The edit made it on-topic, answer should have been a comment anyway

@Duga That one looks like it is actually invalidating, though...

@Duga Agree with Sam, Duga got the username wrong. Looks like a rather pointless edit as well...

@Afonso Hey!

@Peilonrayz I'd say it is off-topic, even if just for a lack of more context of the real code...

@Duga Looks like they invalidated it twice even... rolled back

@SᴀᴍOnᴇᴌᴀ Yeah, and then there's the weird formatting with quote markup. Anyways, I put it in the close vote queue as "Unclear what you are asking"

@SᴀᴍOnᴇᴌᴀ Yeah, the code reads like it is meant as a joke? Also the rewriting in Python part is obviously off-topic...

@Duga It's fine, only overall indentation was fixed, before the code formatting was wrong...

As long as it leaves the answering to us, I won't object

#OurModeratorsAreAllBots

@Mast KK. Felt very spooky. At least I'm not alone :)

Stupid question: Are "No longer needed" comment flags auto-approved under some circumstances? Just took way less than a second to get a comment removed and the flag marked as helpful. (I had previously deleted my comment pointing out something, to which this comment was the response along the lines of "fixed". There were no other comments on the question)

@Ludisposed @Heslacher Thanks!

Anyone want to cancel out my erroneous approve vote on this suggested edit fixing the OP's formatting when they shouldn't: codereview.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/112825

@DarrelHoffman: The spaceship is presumably filled with air (and/or denser material as stated by the OP) and at least 19m long (approximate distance between the batter and the pitcher in baseball), so you would have a similar effect. Maybe the front (at least the part not hit by the rock) survives a bit longer, until the gamma-rays from the back of the ship reach it.

In that code total is actually undefined. You need to replace it with games_to_sim at both occurences.

Very weird...

The wrong coloring of the closing } could just be a problem with your syntax highlighter, but getting the wrong output means you are doing something else wrong...

If I do (Python 3.6.3) it:

@Kevin: Looks fine to me? It even correctly colors the expression part. Have you tried running that line?

@Kevin: Maybe you are missing the %? You either need that or a :0.2f.