deletes

According to this chart it really works: https://xkcd.com/678/

The object was a struct with a size of a typical game object( 100B ), then I trashed the memory by doing a lot of malloc/free using the size of the object. The two tests were one with an array of objects( contiguous array ) and the other an array of pointers to objects which were allocated separately. Then I iterated over the object doing some very simple operation( just enough to access it, and identical for each object ) and timed this. And of course I trashed the memory some more for each time.

The time taken ratio is:

array of objects : array of pointers to objects

1 : 1.189

The second test is identical except I made some extra effort to make sure that every object in array of pointers was not adjacent to any previous one in memory:

array of objects : array of pointers to objects

1 : 2.483

The difference got much smaller once the operation on each object became more time consuming.

That part of the comment only is partially correct, and not was even the main point of my comment; what I really meant was that it doesn't belong in windows, and the main point was that the code is not portable.

'stty' is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or batch file.

I would love to read comments instead of downvotes. Where am I wrong?

I hope there is an obscure setting somewhere that would disable metro completely. As a programmer I see no benefit to it.

http://youtu.be/Pt0ot1LgXZQ?t=1m3s

I did a similar test in C and have gotten very similar results. When N is around 4000 the trashing version starts to differ substantially. A 3x difference can already be seen when N is 1000.

This means if your program is running on two threads over different parts of the matrix, every single iteration requires a request to RAM.

I'm skeptical over this part, I have tried to replicate this behavior but was unsuccessful. Even though cores are sharing L3, I doubt that a thread will overwrite the entire cache on every iteration.

I think a lot of people were acting with pure emotion. Once the surprise subsides the logical reasoning kicks in and you get the bigger picture.

I'm still skeptical about the actual energy usage. If the % more kinetic energy applies equally to battery energy usage.

What is more probable, that they a lying, or that the random generator generated not a single code that matched, which is very(!) improbable by itself, but two codes that belong to the same account, generated at the same iteration.

If only there existed such a thing before facebook, a platform to enable others on the internet to read it,... a blog if you will.

Oh wait...

http://www.altdevblogaday.com/author/john-carmack/

--------

I guess If someone gives you a lot of money you have to talk nice about them.

You can also delete the comment in a certain time period.

There were also some suggestions about restrictions of the single comment.

The easiest solution is to have just one 2 on the table, then spam 4 in corners.

Best( lowest ) score: 1684

Will clicking endorse automatically upvote the answer? It would only make sense to, and you wouldn't have to click twice.