Interesting to consider the total complexity of that approach though.
An iterative fibonacci solution runs in linear time. Calculating the N'th fibonacci number requires O(N) serial operations.
A fully parallel, recursive solution without memoization requires that each value in the sequence is computed more than once. Consider the example of fib(4):
You can see, that if we run this in parallel, the value of fib(1) has to be calculated twice. As the tree of operation branches out, more and more duplicate calculations are required.
A quick google suggests that the time complexity of the recursive approach is O(2^N).
You don't need any specific instructions. The hex encoded double contains the final binary representation of the floating point number. So no conversion is required to load it, except maybe for swapping around bytes on some architectures. Conceptually:
double v;
memcpy(&v, "\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\xe4\x94\x40", sizeof(v)); // LE
Does the chance of seeing a vaccine-defeating mutation increase after injecting parts of the population with a less-effective vaccine (compared to the baseline scenario of no vaccinations at all)? What mechanism is responsible for that?
The answer is only obvious to me if both the original virus variant and the mutation compete for some kind of shared resource. But that shouldn't be the case here, right?
Unless I'm misinterpreting the tweet, she suggests that a partial vaccination campaign will somehow lead to a higher rate of mutations?
As a non-biologist, it's not immediately obvious why that would be the case. What's the mechanism that increases the chance of mutations in vaccinated hosts?
Most CSV files do not follow this standard of course. But you could normalize all CSV files to RFC4180 (or any other consistent format) as the first step of your processing pipeline.
Well you're right, I misremembered. Also I just looked it up and I think it was actually a Panda and not a Punto (only owned it for a short time around 2009 and it was already close to worthless when I bought it). Still, I think it doesn't change the point much: at 500kg you're closer to a small car than to the lightweight moped for which these exceptions were made...
Some (maybe only slightly related or relevant) background:
In Germany, there is a pretty serious problem with dangerous driving and street racing: In the last ten or so years, there has been long string of downtown races that have killed numerous innocent bystanders in all major German cities.
This went so far that recently the German law has been changed and killing somebody while participating in a street race is now treated as "first degree murder". This year, the first conviction under this law was upheld by the German "supreme court". Still, street racing is on the rise.
Now, the uncomfortable truth is that the demographics of the offenders skew towards young German men that do not consider themselves to be culturally German or even European.
I am not trying to enter a debate on the how much value different cultures place on life.
What I am trying to do is to point out that when you consider how the human mind works, it is almost inevitable that these issues are starting to appear to be interlinked. What you have here is a very hot debate on road safety, which is already a topic that is very emotionally charged for a lot of people. Considering that there does actually seem to be a cultural correlation, it is somewhat predictable, if sad, that the public debate around here is now slowly starting to turn into an cultural/ethnic argument.
My personal opinion is that we need a massive crackdown on street racing and dangerous driving to prevent this topic from turning into yet another ethnic fault line in Germany.
An iterative fibonacci solution runs in linear time. Calculating the N'th fibonacci number requires O(N) serial operations.
A fully parallel, recursive solution without memoization requires that each value in the sequence is computed more than once. Consider the example of fib(4):
You can see, that if we run this in parallel, the value of fib(1) has to be calculated twice. As the tree of operation branches out, more and more duplicate calculations are required.
A quick google suggests that the time complexity of the recursive approach is O(2^N).