Interestingly, if you take this method and require the base’s elevation to be somewhere at or above sea level, you get the height of the mountain as it would appear to a human viewer

I say interesting bc when we use this methodology, Denali in Alaska actually appears to be the largest. While its peak is only ~20k feet above seal level, its lowest base is 3k above sea level. Making it appear to be 17k feet tall. Meanwhile Everest is something like 29k and 14k, making it appear to be 15k feet tall, or about 2k feet shorter than Denali

This is sometimes mistaken for a mountain’s “prominence”, but that’s actually a different measurement

Canyonlands is easily my second favorite national park. We went for the first time in November and thought we'd only spend a couple days there but spent twice that and wished we'd had more time. Even just that long drive into the Needles district, understanding that for an hour or more you're just driving down what is basically a dead end road, going deeper and deeper into the canyons. It felt boundless

On a fun note, it gave me the strongest "Roadrunner" vibes of any of the Utah parks

TLDR due to many things, people assume that software engineers / computer scientists all make $200k and due to other things, this isn’t true

This is a problem with the software field as a whole. You hear a lot about salaries like this, so you start to assume that’s what everyone makes. In reality, the average salary might very well be $200k, but I’d guess that the median is more or less around $75k. Basically, while there are jobs that pay an insane amount, the vast majority of people aren’t getting them. In fact, I assume the average person with a CS degree or a bootcamp certificate is working an IT style job making $75k give or take

The second problem is that things like Glassdoor seem to struggle with differentiating titles. So many people who graduate with a CS degree or get a certificate end up as “Information Technology Analysts” or some title other than “Software Engineer”, so when Glassdoor says Software Engineers make $XYZ, keep in mind that there’s a very good chance you get some other title that’s paid less

Add to this that it’s actually hard and some people just aren’t good at it, combined with people pursuing it blindly bc money AND with the fact that technical interviews are a thing (ie your interviews aren’t behavioral alone, they test your programming / security skills extensively) ~ we end up with a relatively low median salary & a giant misconception that all “qualified” people have $200k tech jobs

The point is that while you can get a job like OP’s, unless you’re truly good at it and work very hard, you likely won’t get that. Your salary may still be super good compared to other fields ($75k isn’t bad), but you may be sad to find that you left something you loved just to plateau out and never break into that super-mega-high-paying sector

THAT BEING SAID, if you do have the mind for it & you don’t mind working hard ~ you can get a job like OP’s! Because if you work very hard, you’ll show your worth in technical interviews

This is all coming from me, a CS grad with a good software engineering job. I would say that of the ~200-300 people I knew (to varying extents) from my major, maybe like 50 of us have those good jobs and the rest are all working IT stuff or even something totally different. And 50/200 or 300 may seem like a ton but I went to a pretty good university, so the percentage will be higher than bootcamp programs

Just to stress one more time ~ if you have the brain for it and you work hard, you can get the nicer jobs. Tech interviews majorly benefit people who know their stuff. So if you become super skilled, you won’t struggle to find a great job (like OP)

The true “gotcha” for this prompt is that a toddler could beat a 100 elo bot. I think if I let my cat walk on a chess board and translated those moves to the game against the bot, the cat would still win

I think it isn't a 180 simply because we were all taught about how basically every other part of the ritual, their tombs, etc. revolved around making their afterlife experience easier / better in some way shape or form

So learning that they may have mummified the bodies for the sake of that person's afterlife, with preservation being a byproduct, isn't really a huge revelation. It's neat and definitely different than what we all thought, but it's more like a 90, not a 180, if that makes sense

I 100% agree, just clarifying that under flow has nothing to do with setting a lower bound on an int

Going lower than your lowest bound is still just overflow

Underflow is specifically when you try to represent a floating point number smaller than your float can possibly represent. ie 0.0000000001 instead of 0.00001

Just a semantics misunderstanding thing I see a lot bc it honestly is unnecessarily confusing 😂

I just wanted to leave a fun fact ~ this is not underflow, it's actually still just overflow. Underflow is when a number is too small to be properly stored as a float

Overflow happens when a number flows out of a certain range, so if you can store a number from 0 up to 255, and you try to add 1 to 255, you overflow. The same is true if you subtract 1 from 0 ~ it's still overflow

Here's this resource: https://www.educative.io/answers/what-are-overflow-and-underflow

u/alegonz if you're curious!