Well, what problems are you trying to solve by having the classes all access each other’s data members? Why is that necessary?

Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if screenshots are disabled in that app considering the rest, to “stop leaking sensitive information”.

Danke für den Tipp, muss ich mir mal gerade einen Bericht mit Namen “niemand” erstellen und Maimais pfostieren, damit er in Betracht gezogen wird…

Ich kenne die Platzverteilung dort natürlich nicht, aber dem Artikel nach hört sich das nach einem einzelnen Querdenker an, nicht nach etwas, das die SPD gemeinsam beschlossen hätte.

Sollen das Temperaturen sein? Erinnert mich an diesen Edelstein.

Mein Straßenverkehrsamt tendiert dazu, bei Leuten mit nur einem Namen in ihrem (bspw. indischen) Pass einfach den Namen als Vor- und Nachnamen zu nehmen, sodass bei ihnen dann <Name> <Name> auf dem Führerschein steht… Nur, weil die deutsche Bürokratie nicht mit nur einem Namen klarkommt.

But you just completely ignored everything I said in that comment.

Mathematically, that is precisely how O notation works, only (as I’ve mentioned) we don’t use it like that to get meaningful results. Plus, when looking at time, we can actually use O notation like normal, since computers can indeed calculate something for infinity.

Still, you’re wrong saying that isn’t how it works in general, which is really easy to see if you look at the actual definition of O(g(n)).

Oh, and your computer crashing is a thing that could happen, sure, but that actually isn’t taken into account for runtime analysis, because it only happens with a certain chance. If it would happen after precisely three days every time, then you’d be correct and all algorithms would indeed have an upper bound for time too. However it doesn’t, so we can’t define that upper bound as there will always be calculations breaking it.

It’s very pedantic, but he does have a point. Similar to how you could view memory usage as O(1) regardless of the algorithm used, just because a computer doesn’t have infinite memory, so it’s always got an upper bound on that.

Only that’s not helpful at all when comparing algorithms, so we disregard that quirk and assume we’re working with infinite memory.

Wow, writing the same paragraphs three times… What an abomination of an article.

Sorry, I mistakenly assumed you were talking about disk storage - sure, if you’re designing your own solution, definitely use tags! Although the ones Gmail uses aren’t really portable in my experience, so you’re forced to use their mail client. That, however, is pretty much unavoidable if you’re putting a new spin on established protocols like they’re doing - maybe those changes will get picked up by other clients, maybe they won’t, who knows?

That’s true, but since we’re stuck with the file/folder system for all intents and purposes, you should be able to replicate that behaviour by making those tags part of the filenames (like rent_lease_landlordX.pdf) and searching for (parts of) filenames instead. But yes, a dedicated system would of course be preferable.

Why not just use soft links instead?