I concur, the theory is not necessary to understand how to use it. Perhaps it is counter-intuitive and one would like hone their intuition. Still there are much better approaches to developing an adequate intuition than the theory, this is why traditional Math textbooks rely on exposition first, to establish the context of the theory...

Tell that to Microsoft, ehm… Windows.

At least then you can google for "Microsoft Windows" and get specific results, but yes it is annoying that it pollutes all the search results when you are looking for sheets of glass.

I like the idea, but this should be an api that can be accessed from any language.

If you want an API (or UI), just clone this and modify it as you need: https://github.com/Miksus/rocketry-with-fastapi. I also wrote an article to Medium how it works with FastAPI: https://itnext.io/scheduler-with-an-api-rocketry-fastapi-a0f...

Rocketry plays quite nicely with FastAPI.

it does not imply that no concrete methodologies would help us, but rather they will all fail at truly capturing the theory built by the programmer, as per the author.

This article explicitly states that it only applies to a subset of Vegetarianism, namely Ethical Consequentialist Vegetarianism. Ipso facto, it does not apply to the entirety of Vegetarianism, hence the explicit disclaimer in the introduction.

I reject that as an appropriate or meaningful subset of what it means to be vegetarian, hence my comment. It's basically nonsense as far as I'm concerned. Do you have any supporting view of ethical consequentialist vegetarianism as a sound philosophical position or argument?

The foundational work that advances this view is Peter Singer's Animal Liberation, from 1975, and a whole bunch of other philosophers have written about it since then.

Thank you. This looks like a book I should read.

It is, especially if they are avoiding violence out of moral responsibility...

links to slides are all dead... in parent articles and reference articles

Input: arr = [7, 4, 6, 3, 9, 1] k = 2

Output: k’th smallest element in the array is 4

Am I missing something... shouldn't the k'th smallest element in this array be 3, given that k=2?

Sort the array:

  L = [7, 4, 6, 3, 9, 1]

  -> L = [1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9]

Now L[k] = L[2] = 4.

The notation is potentially misleading, but consistent with this interpretation.

EDIT:

Ah, I was completely wrong.

  List : [7, 4, 6, 3, 9, 1]
  Index:  1  2  3  4  5  6

The smallest element is 1, the second smallest element is 3, the index of the second smallest element counting from 1 is 4.

This is deeply, deeply confusing. Badly expressed, and a very poor example.

Context can be clarified by writing: "Quickselect is a selection algorithm to find the INDEX OF THE kth smallest element in an unordered list. It is closely related to the quicksort sorting algorithm."

it doesn't return the index, rather the element itself..

True. This is what I meant by confusing, without properly defining the variables at play, in this context, k is the index of the element of the ordered list, and not the kth smallest element.

Semantics, I agree, but confusing nonetheless.

Or in other words, how do we define k?

I have emailed them. post should be updated soon.

Post has been updated.

here, numbering starts from 0 same as std::nth_element

Cost of the machine is amortized over the number of e-mail sent, in other words OP is more interested in the average cost of sending an e-mail message, using statistical approximation... (i.e.: sending an e-mail from USA to China on average requires x amount of servers, middle-servers, data-centers, and these process y amount of requests per minute, with a cost of operation of z on average per minute, etc.)

see: https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-it-cost-to-send-an-email...

By sick, you mean can it become bias to a subspace in the solution space, if so you would "cure" it by re-defining your fitness function to not get "stuck", or fooled by a local maxima.