In science, everything is made by monkey men. Why are people so competent at some things but at the same time so utterly retarded?
I think the most maddening thing on Earth has to be anything academic that is constructed by "scientists" or similar animals.
For instance, algorithms, complexity theory, etc it is all done by utter morons I don't consider to be human.
look at how retarded this representation is.
>>8095412
Just FUCK my shit up senpai
>let's hide every pattern
>let's make this shit obtuse as fuck
>let's not represent it in a meaningful way
muh fucking academics
monkeys
what do you consider yourself to be?
>>8095412
That's a binary tree, friend. It's an incredibly useful data structure that is very simple and straightforward to implement. If not for their invention, the speed at which you can operate a computer (which you seem to take for granted) would be quite literally exponentially slower.
0.5/10, made me respond
>>8095395
>For instance, algorithms, complexity theory, etc it is all done by utter morons I don't consider to be human.
If you have respect for a human being, you do not know enough about them. We're all garbage including you, you fucking tool.
>>8095455
I agree but it's still hilarious what a shambled mess academics are.
>>8095473
go back to /v/, icy.
>>8095412
Totally man, it was clearly made by some mongoloids who have no idea how to science
now this is a sexy tree right there
>>8095412
I...what...
Google kdtree that structure turns out to be extremely useful.
So basically, you are mad because you don't understand things, and somehow, that makes everyone else dumb? If you don't understand algorithms, complexity theory, etc, didn't you consider the possibility that it means that you are a fucking moron, and everyone else is just more intelligent than you?
>>8096951
What is that shit called?
Or to save me a google search, in what time would I search a node here?
>>8095439
Fuck off carl
OP, do you make a general statement about how experts that improve stuff are otherwise often socual retards
or are you complaining abous something related to the pictures posted in this thread in particular?
>>8098395
The failure of academics to understand what they are doing. Which is exemplified in the two pictures.
>>8098410
Can you put into words what is wrong with the representations, and reasonable ways in which the problems can be resolved?
>>8098414
It's ugly.
>>8098428
It works. Elegantly.
>>8098414
Here a test
Looking at picture 2
What is the first pattern do you see in the bottommost numbers?
>>8098414
The problem is people taking the bait in this baited bait thread. bait. baity baity bait. yummy yummy bait keeps bad threads at top of list.
>>8098443
I assume you looked at the numbers now and thought about a pattern.
They are symmetric about the point 5.5 should be the first pattern you see. That is not well represented in the choice of depiction.
The person depicting it, did no analysis of what is most optimal. Just a dumb approach by monkey
>>8098449
>elegantly
Do you have a brain? Does this look elegant?
0
0,2
0,2,4,6
It's a shitty shape.
>>8095412
The point was the person used the starting point 0 for some reason. He didn't think to himself why 0. Why not 1000. It shows a reflexive thinking aka monkey aka animal.
It's a disgusting image.
