The main difficulty of part 2 is that there are edge cases that are not covered by the examples. I have appended the example list with some edge cases, so use this list instead:
I don't get the amount of effort people out into the replacement-strategy, I did perfectly fine without it and the code is about as complex as the examples I've seen.
Yeah, all the talk of replacement seems like people masively overthinking or abstracting a day one problem. My C++ solution was a simple search using the <algorithm> header. It's a little less neatly abstracted out as yours, and could be cleaned up a fair bit, as I wasn't bothered to deduplicate the code after getting it working (and I will if this turns out to be useful tomorrow), but the essence is the same:
I disagree on it being "overthinking". I just did replacement without really thinking. Saw that it failed on the "eightwo" case since "two" got replaced first, so just replaced "two" with "two2two" instead, then passed it through solver for part1. To me that's simpler and more naive than correctly writing a search or backwards-forwards regex :)
Ahh, people are trying to do a replacement before finding tokens. I wondered why so many people were saying this was difficult.
My head went straight to token parsing, which given the limited set of tokens made it trivial. Thought I was missing something
One of the reasons for this popularity is the permissive license. I would guess that the license is MIT, but seems to be a bit different [1]. Does anybody know (in simple words) what are the main differences with MIT? The copyright webpage does not elaborate.
The following seems to be the major addition compared to the MIT license:
"Except as contained in this notice, the name of a copyright holder shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization of the copyright holder."
There doesn't seem to be a single canonical MIT licence, but rather several co-existing variants of it. The part you quote is a standard part of the X11 variant [1], while the Expat variant does not include it.
The SPDX license identifiers are the best thing we have for defining what the canonical version is (which is used by expat): https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html
There are many MIT-derrived licenses, some of which have identifiers prefixed with MIT- and others like X11 and curl have independent identifiers: https://spdx.org/licenses/
All the more reason to avoid calling any one licence ‘the MIT licence’, in my opinion. While I appreciate that SPDX provides a comprehensive list unambiguous identifiers, I don’t really see why they would be best suited to determine which of the many variants a name has been used for is the best candidate.
That’s not to say they necessarily aren’t; I’d be interested to see if any rationale behind that choice has been published anywhere. But if the choice was made more or less arbitrarily, or based on what seemed more popular to the authors, I’d be inclined not to treat SPDX as an authority on the matter.
The existence of the advertising clause was always the main difference between the traditional BSD license and MIT license. The above is interesting because it's also an an advertising clause, but it does something the opposite of what the BSD advertising clause did. BSD wanted the license and the Regents to be mentioned in advertising.
It appears to be a custom licence, which, as stated on the page, is inspired by the MIT/X11 licence. The only difference from MIT/X11 appears to be the the part before the warranty disclaimer, which has been shortened. SPDX has a separate entry for it [1].
Well, they constantly take tiny steps towards making it an iOS for the desktop. That's down to the name. Mac OS X became macOS (based on iOS).
Their argument for denying users the ability to sideload software on iOS is that said software may include critical security vulnerabilities or even malware. So, why are they leaving their macOS users exposed to vulnerabilities? Why wouldn't they attempt to go in the same direction with macOS?
Their absolute main reason is of course that they take a cut on all software sold via the App Store. Thankfully the EU is doing something[1].
macOS gets iPhone hand-me-downs. Apple’s cross platform endeavors start on the phone, now. Catalyst replacement apps were initially abysmal, and are glacially improving, but have not approached their former Mac greatness, and probably won’t. I’d hoped the Apple Silicon reinvigoration of the Mac would help, but it hasn’t yet. iOS reigns supreme.
If you want the drone to autonomously track you, then the mini 4 pro is the only realistic choice since it has obstacle detection at all directions. The mini 3 pro does not have obstacle detection at the sides.
In a mountain bike scenario, the drone is mostly capturing you on the side and it is moving sideways itself. So, unless you want to fly it next to the sea, you want to have sideways obstacle detection. Or, just have a friend control it. :)
My mountain biking is done at a mountain biking park with no trees on the tracks I ride. As long as it maintains at least 10 feet of altitude over me, there's no risk for it hitting something.
That said, I'm starting to lean towards spending the extra money to pick up the Mini 4 Pro, especially if Costco runs a good bundle deal. Like right now, they sell a Mini 3 Pro bundle for $839 that includes the drone and RC-N1 controller, 2 extra batteries, charging hub, and a 128 GB SD card. All that would be $1,063 if bought from DJI directly.
Wouldn't it be better to get a (helium) ballon and attach i.e a go-pro that with a rope tied to you. I mean, you need a bit of volume that will have a bit of drag, but it will always follow you, be quiet and mostly cheaper.
Keep in mind that this only applies to the FCC regulations. In Europe (CE regulations) the claimed range is 10 km.
The mini 3 pro has a CE regulations claimed range of 8 km, but after 2.5 km I pretty much loose connection. If I turn the drone to face my direction, I might be able to fly it a bit further, but at this point it is so hard to control it, that there is no point.
Btw, according to regulations, you can not fly it without line of sight. So, in practice the "legal" range is a few hundrend meters. I have yet to see an observer with binoculars. :)
I have noticed that it really depends on the wind direction. If the wind blows from the drone towards the people, you could hear it at 50 meters. Plus, when there is a lot of wind it makes much more noise in its struggle to fight it. Otherwise, unless it is directly next to you, you can hardly hear anything.
My biggest crowd are children and pets. They always seem to be amused by the drone.
Nothing gets consumed, he just gets bored with his 5 year old bike and wants something that has all the latest new tech. He probably got a new 12-speed bike in the last year just because it's 1 more speed than the older 11-speed bikes from 5 years ago, for instance.
