Some of these are poorly worded. Why does the answer to the May one keep talking about 30 seconds passing when the only time mentioned in the problem is 30 minutes? 30 seconds gives Nick at least 10 seconds per possible solution, he should have tried them all by then.
It should talk about the number of tries so far (one each), the length of time it took is irrelevant. But why are they even taking turns when they have separate padlocks and could easily brute-force it? I get the concept they're going for but the premise doesn't fit and just confuses things.
Most of the examples you point out make sense if you know that using greater than or less than casts the value to a number. >= and <= always cast their parameters to numbers while == only does if either side is already a number.
It wouldn't need to involve cognition and logic, it could be evolutionary coincidence: humpback whales with behavior that happens to result in fewer orcas nearby would have more surviving offspring, so this behavior would be selected for.
No, it would require them to add their cert on the intended machines under their control. The only reasons they would need the trust of all browsers and OS's are subterfuge and laziness. They should not be globally trusted to issue certificates.
Officially branded Tetris games are required to use a "random bag" algorithm where they generate random permutations of the 7 tetrominos, so that for every 7 pieces (aligned with the bag start) you get each type once. You can only get two in a row if they appear at the end of one bag and the start of the next, and conversely there's a maximum of 12 pieces between duplicates (start of one bag, end of the next). Three in a row will never happen.
> People may not always feel comfortable checking into a local bar or sharing an anecdote from their lives, knowing these updates may not be relevant to all their connections.
Google Plus solved this exact problem 5 years ago with "circles", letting you choose what to share with which groups of "friends". Why hasn't Facebook implemented this?
They actually have - and make it a bit easier than G+ did - with Groups and Smart Lists.
They also added a separate tier called 'Acquaintances' that you could add people to a while back.
However most users don't make use of it and will either share with Public or Friends. The only exception is things like groups - which are popular with things like neonatal classes and sports teams.
What black hole are you sending JSON into where the only way they could know something is a date is if you use a date type? Why can't that be part of the data structure you agreed upon in order to communicate in the first place?
Even if there is an agreed on schema, parsers can generate native Date objects on the recipient if there is a date type. When you deserialize a nested graph of objects, it's hard to convert each date to an actual date if what you get is just a string. Makes it a lot easier during integration.
Why am I hand-writing code to supplement the parser? I mean, hell, we don't need JSON at all, why don't I just invent my own serialization format and write parsers for it in each environment I want to use it in.
