Different waters taste differently. Tap water taste differs from region to region. Bottled water tastes differently between brands and also compared to tap water. This is also caused by varying amounts of minerals.

If you think your sense of taste works fine, but can not tell taste differences in water, try making direct comparisons. Take some bottled water and some tap water (if it is safe for drinking whereever you live). Then take a sip, focus on the taste. Try making out differences. Repeat a couple of times.
If you still can’t make out any differences and you weren’t impatient, it might be worth training your sense of taste first, because water does have a flavour.

deleted by creator

but enough for that answer to be valid

Highly arguable. Especially without specifications on the lamp. It could be a rather dim and small one. Then, you either need special equipment or supersenses.

https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/3182:_Telescope_Types

I missed some puns as it seems. E.g. the comoving or proper distances in gravitational lenses. Or the spicy liquid mirrors.

Here you can test how identifiable you are:

https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/

https://amiunique.org/

gnew?

The more experience I gain over the years, the more this feels relatable. I had to pull myself together to keep my comments regarding kaputt Nvidia APIs civil in my code and commit messages.

Ah Nvidia. Always a fucking PITA (not the bread kind). I wonder how they have managed to become the most valuable chip manufacturer worldwide.

If you spend enough time and effort in selected communities on Lemmy you can get a similar experience.

And of course the necro-haters when you reply to something that is older than a week. So the spirit of old times is still there.

Skyrim was released on the 11.11.2011. I still haven’t played through. It’s about time.

Tankie is a pejorative label generally applied to authoritarian communists, especially those who support or defend acts of repression by such regimes, their allies, or deny the occurrence of the events thereof. More specifically, the term has been applied to those who express support for one-party Marxist–Leninist socialist republics, whether contemporary or historical. It is commonly used by anti-authoritarian leftists, anarchists, libertarian socialists, left communists, social democrats, democratic socialists, and reformists to criticise Leninism, although the term has seen increasing use by liberal and right‐wing factions as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie

Don’t worry. We’re working on AI powered humanoid robots that will replace natural human connection.

Good question! I have read a bit more about it and this does indeed heavily depend on the respective compiler implementation. Depending on the compiler, it may prefer default if-else ladders for few cases. For more, dense cases, LUTs may play a larger role. For less dense cases binary search might be chosen.

I inspected the generated assembler code of your (slightly extended) example via https://godbolt.org/

The code I used:

void check_uv();
void check_holograph();
void check_stripe();
void check_watermark();

void switch_test(int banknoteValue) {

    switch (banknoteValue) {
        case 5000:
            check_uv();
            check_holograph();
        case 2000:
            check_stripe();
        case 1000:
            check_watermark();
    }

}

Using x86-64 gcc 15.2 this leads to a couple of cmp followed by je instructions, so “compare” and “jump to label if equal” which basically is a typical if-else ladder. I get the same for x64 msvc v19.43.
Changing the cases to 1, 2 and 3 instead of 5000, 2000 and 1000 does not change the outcome.

Increasing to 23 different but incrementally increasing cases (cases 1 to 23) does not change the outcome as well for gcc. But here msvc has introduced a performance optimization: it decreased the input value by one to get a range of 0 to 22 and then created a jump table, so a LUT with execution addresses. (I am not going to detail the assembler commands logic here, but you can use the C++ code below and take a look yourself. :) )

So even in this simple example we can already see how different compilers may implement switch cases differently depending on its structure. Even though gcc chose the apparently less efficient solution here, usually one may trust on the compiler choosing the most efficient switch implementation. ;)

As far as I know, we would not even get the chance of similar optimizations if choosing if-else ladders directly instead of a switch-case structure. It would be interesting to put this to a test though and see whether some compilers translate if-else ladders equivalently with the performance benefits that can currently come with switch structures.

The inflated code:

void check_uv();
void check_holograph();
void check_stripe();
void check_watermark();

void switch_test(int banknoteValue) {

    switch (banknoteValue) {
        case 1:
            check_uv();
            check_holograph();
        case 2:
            check_stripe();
        case 3:
            check_watermark();
        case 4:
            check_watermark();
        case 5:
            check_watermark();
        case 6:
            check_watermark();
        case 7:
            check_watermark();
        case 8:
            check_watermark();
        case 9:
            check_watermark();
        case 10:
            check_watermark();
        case 11:
            check_watermark();
        case 12:
            check_watermark();
        case 13:
            check_watermark();
        case 14:
            check_watermark();
        case 15:
            check_watermark();
        case 16:
            check_watermark();
        case 17:
            check_watermark();
        case 18:
            check_watermark();
        case 19:
            check_watermark();
        case 20:
            check_watermark();
        case 21:
            check_watermark();
        case 22:
            check_watermark();
        case 23:
            check_watermark();
    }

}

That falls into the “very desparate” part. As long as there are companies that have better recruitement processes it will help if most people prefer those over others. If all of these companies reject an applicant then this applicant might become “desparate” and turn towards worse companies. So it’s more the mass of people that influence the market and can therefore improve its conditions.

Typewise.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ch.icoaching.typewise

Once you get used to it, it is very good. Nice large buttons, fast typing, strong privacy (e.g. EU based, on-device-only learning for next word suggestions), customizable, and you can also get the pro version forever with a single purchase instead of using the subscription model.

“Solutions”

Not really solutions if they are not applicable or helpful for the problem the respective person has.

This is possible and much easier than with the people who usually do the actual work that makes a company sucessfull.

For example, this chinese company has done it and performs very well: https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/ai-ceo-artificial-intelligence-b2302091.html

I’ve got a rejection notice after I was hired by the very same company. The reason was that someone forgot to mark the application as accepted, so the system automatically sent the rejection mail. That was confusing at first, but also funny.

You seldomly do get the reason. Even if you’re asking. Because companies don’t want to provide ground for lawsuits. The reasons for rejection can be highly arbitrary and therefore not be justified. Even on a legal basis. So they won’t tell.

These application process dances are usually a highly defect and outdated approach to hiring anyway.

Signs that they are in dire need of devs.

Croissantius 🥐