Comparing strings from the back?

[Dwight Hutto]

What? Without context I have no idea what this means.


Ramit

Why don't you read the OP:


Let's assume you're testing two strings for equality. You've already
done the obvious quick tests (i.e they're the same length), and you're
down to the O(n) part of comparing every character.

I'm wondering if it might be faster to start at the ends of the strings
instead of at the beginning? If the strings are indeed equal, it's the
same amount of work starting from either end. But, if it turns out that
for real-life situations, the ends of strings have more entropy than the
beginnings, the odds are you'll discover that they're unequal quicker by
starting at the end.

and this one from me:

First include len(string)/2, in order to include starting at the
center of the string, and threading/weaving by 2 processes out.

import timeit

do the the rest, and see which has the fastest time.> --
Why don't take the time to read the OP, and ramit in your head?

Remember that you're in the middle of a conversation where the OP is
following as it goes along, so anyone reading the entire set of
postings should get it.

But for people who just want to jump in, and assume that the only
thing that matters is one piece, without reading the entire content of
the conversation, will always have something out of context for them.

 

[Mark Lawrence]

What? Without context I have no idea what this means.


Ramit

You're wasting your time, I've been described as a jackass for having
the audacity to ask for context

 

[Dwight Hutto]

I'm pretty sure you are in the wrong, acting as if what he said didn't make
sense! Just read it, he obviously was telling you to time it, as eit lops
are inside thmax input/ which, as you should know if you bothered to read
the thread, is incrementing.

"don'" is short for "don't", by the way.

It's the fact that I consider the entire conversation the context.
Reading the OP's being the primary, and things they responded
positively to.

There are other things that get mixed up as well, like not hitting the
.... in gmail, and so that content doesn't show, or hitting reply,
instead of reply all, and things getting jumbled for the others
involved in the conversation.

Then there is the problem of people saying you posted too much of the
context, or not inline with the OP, just at the end, or top posting.

I try to keep it along the line of what the OP has read, and they know
the context in which it's meant.

 

[Mark Lawrence]

I'm pretty sure you are in the wrong, acting as if what he said didn't make
sense! Just read it, he obviously was telling you to time it, as eit lops
are inside thmax input/ which, as you should know if you *bothered to read
the thread*, is incrementing.

"don'" is short for "don't", by the way.

I do grovellingly apologize for my appalling breach of netiquette. I am
of course assuming that the rules have changed and that it's now my
responsibility to wade back through maybe a couple of hundred responses
on a long thread to find the context. I also guess that I'm never going
to achieve my ambition of being a pot smoking hippy CEO of a web
development company

 

[Dwight Hutto]

I do grovellingly apologize for my appalling breach of netiquette. I am of
course assuming that the rules have changed and that it's now my
responsibility to wade back through maybe a couple of hundred responses on a
long thread to find the context.

I also guess that I'm never going to

achieve my ambition of being a pot smoking hippy CEO of a web development
company

Cheers usually implies you're an alcoholic pressing buttons, with the
half of rest of the coders on the net.

So don't give up hope, you might be able to take a medication that
doesn't impair your judgement with the side effects alcohol has,

And of course leaves you without the ability to read any of the
responses to say you were right in certain instances, so something
must be wrong with your mail reader, or your alcoholic mind.

Also, without reading the other posts, you're probably just placing in
a duplicate answer sometimes, which might make you seem like a copy
cat.

 

[Steven D'Aprano]

Then there is the problem of people saying you posted too much of the
context, or not inline with the OP, just at the end, or top posting.

The solution to "you quoted too much unnecessary verbiage" is not "quote
nothing". It is quote only the parts that are relevant.

I try to keep it along the line of what the OP has read, and they know
the context in which it's meant.

You're assuming that people read your posts immediately after they read
the post you replied to. Always imagine that your reply will be read a
week after the post you replied to. Do you still expect the reader to
understand what you're talking about?

 

[alex23]

Why don't take the time to read the OP, and ramit in your head?

Please, don't be a dick.

 

[Chris Angelico]

You're assuming that people read your posts immediately after they read
the post you replied to. Always imagine that your reply will be read a
week after the post you replied to.

And a week is extremely generous too; these posts get archived on the
web. I *frequently* find myself hitting mailing list archives when
researching obscurities. This is also another good reason to post
follow-ups to the list, rather than in private email. You might never
be thanked, but somebody years down the track may find the question
and an associated answer.

ChrisA

 

[Dwight Hutto]

Please, don't be a dick.

For telling him to ramit into his head that you should read the OP?

 

[alex23]

For telling him to ramit into his head that you should read the OP?

Yes. I'm not sure if it was intentionally racist, but you come across
as a bit of a dwight supremacist.

 

[Dwight Hutto]

Yes. I'm not sure if it was intentionally racist, but you come across
as a bit of a dwight supremacist.

Please explain any logic whatsoever that would give you that conclusion.

Seems more like propaganda, and you're not very good at it.

I think you're referring to a play on words(ramit). Ain't I so punny.

 

[alex23]

Please explain any logic whatsoever that would give you that conclusion.

Well, this:

I think you're referring to a play on words(ramit).

Using foreign names derogatively is a common tactic of the racist.

Ain't I so punny.

Not really, no.

 

[Dwight Hutto]

I think you're referring to a play on words(ramit).

Using foreign names derogatively is a common tactic of the racist.

Not really. But nice spin on my pun to make me look bad.

Keep trying, and maybe you'll come up with an insult/ propaganda
that's less obvious to the viewer that you're a liar, and a person who
couldn't end this with out throwing a blatant race card.

It's similar to if I said, this is real 'queer' of you to do ya big
pansy, and next you'll be calling me a homophobe.

Try harder, because no one would ever believe I was a racist, and if
they did, it's an uninformed decision based off of cherry picken
phrases out of context.

Very text book propaganda of you though.

 

[alex23]

Not really. But nice spin on my pun to make me look bad.

It actually *is* common behaviour of racists.

It's similar to if I said, this is real 'queer' of you to do ya big
pansy, and next you'll be calling me a homophobe.

Well, *yes*. Because your choice of that terminology as derogatory
shows you view it as derogatory.

Try harder, because no one would ever believe I was a racist, and if
they did, it's an uninformed decision based off of cherry picken
phrases out of context.

Oh, so *now* context is important.

Very text book propaganda of you though.

I don't think that word means what you think it does.

 

[Dwight Hutto]

It actually *is* common behaviour of racists.

Not if there name is ramit. What if your name was john? I'd say I'll
be right back, I have to go take a crap on the john. It's a joke about
a name, not where it originates.

Well, *yes*. Because your choice of that terminology as derogatory
shows you view it as derogatory.

No it was a loose analogy to show that he's just trying to use
anything he can say to slam me, and everyone can know it wasn't meant
as racist.

Oh, so *now* context is important.

Never said it wasn't. The whole conversation to me is the context, and
the OP usually follows it, and that's who it is usually intended for.

I don't think that word means what you think it does.

from wiki:

Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the
attitude of a community toward some cause or position. Propaganda is
usually repeated and dispersed over a wide variety of media in order
to create the chosen result in audience attitudes.

He wants people to think I'm a racist, and you now want to see that in
me as well. It seems it has propagated, and that I know exactly what
it means.

And all over a silly post that had too little content, at the time, to
have what I said require any other posts, especially if the OP is
following the conversation.

 

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Sep 14, 6:04 pm, Dwight Hutto <[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]


Please don't feed the trolls.

 

[alex23]

Not if there name is ramit. What if your name was john? I'd say I'll
be right back, I have to go take a crap on the john. It's a joke about
a name, not where it originates.

I'd recommend reading up on white privilege but I'm pretty sure it'd
be a wasted suggestion.

No it was a loose analogy

You can't use something as an example to support your case, and then
dismiss it as "a loose analogy" when it undermines it.

he's just trying to use anything he can say to slam me everyone
can know it wasn't meant as racist.

The "anything" I'm "using" is what *you* have said. I'm not trying to
"slam" you, I don't even know who you are. I just have a very short
fuse for rudeness and an even shorter one for racism, even if it *was*
intended in a "hyuck hyuck, I'm so punny" way. Ignorant racism is
still racism.

The whole conversation to me is the context

And yet:

He wants people to think I'm a racist, and you now want to see that in
me as well. It seems it has propagated, and that I know exactly what
it means.

Again, so much for context. There is no "he" and me, I'm the person
who made the original accusation and then followed up on it. That's
not propagation, so it's not propaganda.

Now, someone who starts a new thread to have a conversation *with
themselves* in some bizarre piece of performance art that seems
intended to brand as petty the *requests that he actually follow list
etiquette*...*that* is someone I'd consider a propagandist.

 

[Dwight Hutto]

I'd recommend reading up on white privilege but I'm pretty sure it'd

be a wasted suggestion.

Not really, I tend to like interdisciplinary study. But I'm a little
of everything if you like Darwin.

You can't use something as an example to support your case, and then
dismiss it as "a loose analogy" when it undermines it.

How did it undermine it? It's the same thing, just transferred to
another well known group subject to violent bigotry.

I used a play on words in a response, and because his names foreign
that makes me a racist. There's no logic in that, other than to bring
me down, and use the worst thing you can say...playing the race card.

The "anything" I'm "using" is what *you* have said. I'm not trying to
"slam" you, I don't even know who you are. I just have a very short
fuse for rudeness and an even shorter one for racism,

It wasn't rude in terms of these things that have been said about me.
Then lengthen your fuse, because I'm not a racist, I just play with
words a lot, including foreign names.
even if it *was*

intended in a "hyuck hyuck, I'm so punny" way. Ignorant racism is
still racism.

Still trying to propagate a thought that I'm racist based on a guy who
for all I know is white, and uses the A.K.A ramit.

I have no freakin clue if ramit is an ethnic name or nickname...we're
on the internet tweedledick(badumchee, and hyuck,hyuck,hyuck)

And yet:


Again, so much for context. There is no "he" and me, I'm the person
who made the original accusation and then followed up on it. That's
not propagation, so it's not propaganda.

You're still trying to prove the point, when we all know I'm not a racist.

Now, someone who starts a new thread to have a conversation *with
themselves* in some bizarre piece of performance art that seems
intended to brand as petty the *requests that he actually follow list
etiquette*...*that* is someone I'd consider a propagandist.
--

You mean like you taking over this thread to call me a racist, and go
on ad nauseam about it, when everyone can see what you're doing is
trying to prove a point you know is wrong?

Go back to debate 101, and flunk your professor if he passed you.

 

[Dwight Hutto]

[snip]

Please don't feed the trolls.

You're down here under the bridge with the rest of us trolls too, Steven. 24/7

 

[Prasad, Ramit]

Mark,
Sometimes it is the style in which something is asked, and not what
specifically is asked.

I also guess that I'm never going to

Cheers usually implies you're an alcoholic pressing buttons, with the
half of rest of the coders on the net.

Dwight/David:
Not necessarily true if you happen to be from the UK (or maybe just England).
It seems to be a cultural signature equivalent to "Thanks"--at least in the
UK (not sure about other places).

[snip]


Ramit


This email is confidential and subject to important disclaimers and
conditions including on offers for the purchase or sale of
securities, accuracy and completeness of information, viruses,
confidentiality, legal privilege, and legal entity disclaimers,
available at http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/disclosures/email.