It said in the article that the machine analyzes the category. My speculation is that if it correctly deduces that the category is one of those "answer-hybrid" ones, then it can try to break down the question into two parts, answer each, and cross-reference to find an overlap. In this case it seems pretty reasonable that such a sophisticated machine could break the problem down to "classic candy bar" and "female Supreme Court justice", combined with the knowledge that they share a word this would actually become "straightforward".
Notice how even when they screwed up, they were still bailed out. Obviously I'm not thrilled that any bank would screw up in the first place, but no one's bailing out BankSimple if they do too.
I wonder which would actually faster - binary search on the standard ordered alphabet or going linearly in order of letter frequency.
Even better - some hybrid algorithm that goes through the most common letters then goes into binary search for the remaining letters (many of which appear at approximately equal frequency)
Maybe this is asking too much, but I'm seeing a ton of different recommendations in the comments - anyone have experience with many (or at least more than one) of these options and wouldn't mind going into some of the differences that stood out to them?
I've Googled in the past but haven't found too many great reviews comparing some of these choices side-by-side - most seem to regurgitate the feature sets as opposed to going into the level of detail that would be most helpful for a developer.
Neither of those comparisons make any sense, in my opinion. We've got the standard differences of country size (both in terms of land area and population) and time (a lot has changed about the world, especially in terms of communication, even in the past 15 years).
But, we've also got the huge difference that China, and Chinese people, are simply different. I don't even know where to begin in describing how different Chinese people in China fundamentally are from Americans in America. It's like when I see comments made by people such as "I wonder how the Chinese people can stand <insert thing here>", I immediately think to myself that it's a complete non-issue, just an accepted fact of life, for all of my Chinese relatives living in China.
Also, things such as the one child act don't help - you've literally got an entire generation of spoiled only childs, and let me tell you, many of them are remarkably spoiled in the cities. You've got this feeling of collectivism which still very much exists, the "we" taking precedence over the "I", not in the oversimplified hive-mind way that most Westerners perceive it as, but rather something more inbetween. It always amazes me that people in China can feel such a sense of duty to their country (such as a student feeling it's his/her duty to the country to do well in school, something that pretty much never happens in the USA), but yet also feel such apathy for other people around them (to a degree that also doesn't happen in the USA ... not saying we're saints here who never pass by homeless people on the streets without even looking at them by any means, but the degree is still different).
And the list goes on and on, I still don't know where to begin or where to end. I know I'm not comparing China to Yugoslavia or Hungary here, but the perception gap even to this day between China and the USA is so great (and more importantly, so much greater than what most people think it is) that I can't imagine it being much less for China and other situations. Point being, a revolution might be peaceful, or it might be violent, or it might be somewhere inbetween, but none of these outcomes would have anything to do with the situations that led to Hungary's outcome being the way it was, or Yugoslavia's being the way it was.
I hope this was a joke. Concepts like a "mandate of Heaven" are completely irrelevant in modern China. Also as a side note, China really hasn't had disproportionately more "revolutions" than any other nation with such a long history.
Solving problems 1-4 on each day of the Putnam with an "unlimited" amount of time is not a ridiculous expectation. Putnam's difficulty is partly due to its time format.
Overall I agree with you, but usability and user interface don't do anything for someone who doesn't even consider using Ubuntu. Boot time is one of those things that, if you get it beyond a certain threshold of speed, can really jump out and grab someone's attention. For those people who power down their computers and start them up again for whatever reason, it'll be extremely noticeable every single time, both when they start up their own 10.04 machines, and when they go to non-10.04 machines that start up way more slowly. This seems like one of those things that will serve a specific group of people very very well, and doesn't hurt for everyone else. As long as they're not sacrificing too much effort for this, it seems like it could be a good use of effort.
If you take each group of people in the New World to be an item, then the title is essentially saying "why didn't the various different groups of people in the New World invent the wheel" - it's trying to emphasize that each of group of people is actually being considered a singular entity. Whether or not this is actually grammatically correct, I don't know, though intuitively it seems quite reasonable to me (which is generally a good first approximation of grammatical accuracy for native speakers).
I don't want to get into the details (for obvious reasons) but we are quite lenient about public link usage! We're mostly interested in cutting off the potentially expensive long tail, which can get very, very long.
I think your question is phrased in a somewhat misleading way. For starters, I gave 10% as a loose lower bound, not as the actual number. More importantly, the question implies that a user is active if and only if he/she syncs a file today.
There are a variety of things that can be used to define "active user". Logically, the point of defining "active user" is to differentiate between users who have a good chance of using a product/service again or on a regular basis or something like that (depends on the nature of your service), and users who almost certainly won't and are just taking up space in your user registry (or in our case, space on our servers as well). I won't go into any further details, but the number of people who do a file sync at least once a week is much higher than the number of people who do a file sync every day, and the number of people who do a file sync at least once a month is much higher than that. In addition, there are people who don't add or edit new files very often, but do frequently access their existing files, who aren't being counted in the approximate numbers I gave above. Anyway, going off of this qualitative "definition" of activity, I consider much, much more than 10% of our users to be active users.
In Facebook's defense (I have no affiliation with FB, and in general am not a big fan of them), they probably weren't looking for somebody to whip out Newton's method, but rather just binary search.
Everyone who says "this question is completely irrelevant" isn't completely right. This question would be completely irrelevant if they were exclusively looking for a "fancy" square root finding technique. However, binary search is a pretty basic algorithm - the trick here is to recognize that such a basic algorithm can be applied to a seemingly unrelated problem. If Facebook is testing to see if people can connect different parts of their knowledge (square root function is strictly increasing, something that everyone knows to be true at least intuitively, combined with the fact that binary search can then be used in such a situation), then it's a reasonable question to ask. Maybe not for a front-end developer though.