51–60 of 247 posts
This implementation is O(n) on retrieval, rather than O(1) as in the ideal case. Hopefully v2 will optimize that in the near future.
I am a competitor of Shitbowl, and my product ("Shitdrawer") solves this issue!
This kind of sarcastic social critique well designed site reminds of better times for the Internet... before the dark times... before Facebook.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am a competitor of Shitbowl, and my product ("Shitdrawer") solves this issue!
However, while it's true that your product is O(1) even in the worst case, when you look closer it's actually O(1) + O(1) even in the best case, as you have to open the Shitdrawer to even get the the most recently used item. Do you have any solution to this?
This implementation is O(n) on retrieval, rather than O(1) as in the ideal case. Hopefully v2 will optimize that in the near future.
It is true that it is theoretically O(n) in the worst case, but in my own production deployments I have tended to find a huge skew towards selecting the most recently inserted couple of items. Here the obvious ocular caching optimization leads to O(1) time retrieval.
Why is the HN article title obscured with "*"? Does HN have a forbidden words policy?
I tried explaining this to my wife with my laundry pile and she wouldn’t buy it.
We have already seeded the market with test prototypes shaped like laundry baskets that are limited to small pieces of cloth footwear. But we hope to scale up to Level 5 Flinging of Massive Objects (FOMO) before the end of the year.