It depends on if the problem is recursive or iterative, and how much it needs to be optimized.
For example, you may use a for loop for a simple find and replace scheme for characters in a string, where you check each character one by one until you find one which matches the target, and then substitute that.
There are certainly recursive ways to do string replacement in strings which might be faster than an iterative search depending on implementation, but that's more optimization than I might need 99.9999% of the time
A recursive problem that's difficult to solve iteratively is browsing all the files in a folder and it's subfolders. Each folder may have several subfolders, which you then need to search, but then each of those folders can have subfolders. This problem can be solved fairly easily recursively but not as easily iteratively.
That's not to say it can't be solved that way, but the implementation may be easier to write
Recursive code, however, is more frequently prone to bugs which causes infinite recursion leading to crashes, as it is not a tool which is often used and requires several more fences to prevent issues. For example, in the folder example, if one were to encounter a shortcut to another folder and implement code to follow that shortcut as if it were a directory as well, then placing a shortcut to a folder within itself might cause the code to recurse infinitely without having a maximum recursion depth and or checking for previously seen folders.
I heard it's bc the most popular novel site only shows the title so they started packing the entire description onto the title to try and get attention, which led to this mess
Myrrh isn't really a chewing gum, moreso a resinous material which can be used as both a binder and a scent. It's often used in incense along with other resins and gums like copal. Other examples of gums include gum Arabic and xanthan gum
I have been playing CS since 1.6. I know a cheater when I see one and I know wallbangs can happen. You mean the guy with 100% headshot rate, shoots exclusively at people thorough walls before seeing them, and puts their face into a wall to stare at the enemy and track them walking through the map on 1v1 is playing legitimately? Unless I've done something to tank my trust factor and it hasn't changed in something like 5 years, then there's no reason for me to have low trust factor.
The cheater problem was not like this before and has been getting steadily worse. Just because you don't see them doesn't mean they don't exist. Besides that wallbangs are nothing like in 1.6.
The problem is that for detection of identical programs, vac relies on program signatures. You could make slight changes to to program to change the signature and recompile it, or use something that changes the signature every time you compile it. That means even though those running the cheats are using essentially the same program sold to them by the same person, if one gets banned then VAC sees the other program and goes, "I've never seen this program in my life"
Other anti cheats will try to identify programs by their functionality (e.g modifying or reading memory of other programs) and using heuristics but that is both more invasive and requires higher level of privilege which many people aren't willing to give.
The other alternative valve is experimenting with is AI to detect aimbot, which could work in some instances, but is prone to false positives, and isn't able to as easily identify behavior such as walling
It's basically luck of the draw with trust factor and region
I regularly run into cheaters who I watch the demo afterwards and they just sit there aim locked onto someone and tracking them through the wall for 10s before blasting them without ever seeing them, or react to things they can't see (e.g. suddenly flick to a corner someone is walking up to in a panic wo seeing or hearing a thing). Basically every other game has someone suspicious if not blatantly cheating from the start. If was bad in CSGO and it's 10x worse in CS2
Many have PTC or poly fuses that can self reset, so a port may briefly stop working. Some are built into the hub ICs or are in the form of a surface mount resistor
That is not how devices like this work; plugging a 5V 3A device into a 5V 1A port means you can only pull 1A. Going beyond that will either trip a fuse on the board or cause the port to shut off, or potentially keep working with diminished voltage.
If it is USB PD or QC then the devices may negotiate a higher voltage, but for standard hubs like these it's most likely to just use a USB A port and 5V.
Eta: a powered hub will also take its power externally from an adapter which can supply much more current, so its draw from the unpowered hub is minimal. In the opposite order, the unpowered hub could max out the current on the powered hub and as long as the port is protected everything should be fine.Theoretically a decent hub would be fused and not allow drawing enough current to damage anything.
A lizard of that size probably doesn't have that strong of a bite
I would catch Italian wall lizards in highschool and when they bite down on your finger it's not much more pressure than a paperclip (not the black binder clips)
Except that leaves it up to the court which has a record of wrongfully convicting people based on false or circumstantial evidence and then putting them on death row
Something everyone here seems to be forgetting is that even if you are getting the same amount of sleep, sleeping at a time which fits your biological clock better is better for you. I can get some amount of sleep and wake up at 5am and be tired the whole day, and yet if I wake up at 8-9am with the same amount of sleep I am perfectly functional the whole day.
No but tldr he was a poster on Reddit that was famous for being everywhere and constantly on the front page. Turned out he was using vote manipulation to guarantee he would make it to the top. He realized the first few votes mattered most for post turnout because a single up vote pushes a new post to the top above every other 1 score post. He used several accounts to upvote his own posts and down vote others to increase his own discoverability
It depends on if the problem is recursive or iterative, and how much it needs to be optimized.
For example, you may use a for loop for a simple find and replace scheme for characters in a string, where you check each character one by one until you find one which matches the target, and then substitute that.
There are certainly recursive ways to do string replacement in strings which might be faster than an iterative search depending on implementation, but that's more optimization than I might need 99.9999% of the time
A recursive problem that's difficult to solve iteratively is browsing all the files in a folder and it's subfolders. Each folder may have several subfolders, which you then need to search, but then each of those folders can have subfolders. This problem can be solved fairly easily recursively but not as easily iteratively.
That's not to say it can't be solved that way, but the implementation may be easier to write
Recursive code, however, is more frequently prone to bugs which causes infinite recursion leading to crashes, as it is not a tool which is often used and requires several more fences to prevent issues. For example, in the folder example, if one were to encounter a shortcut to another folder and implement code to follow that shortcut as if it were a directory as well, then placing a shortcut to a folder within itself might cause the code to recurse infinitely without having a maximum recursion depth and or checking for previously seen folders.