“roughly five weeks”

Since weeks are counted from the beginning of her last period, not conception, this operation must have happened within one week of her missed period. Perhaps it wasn’t so clearly within the law.

I pasted 1k line C++ file into Gemini, along with a screenshot and a trace log and asked it to find the bug. It reasoned for about 5 minutes. Extract of the solution:

There has to be an issue in this sequence for i=21:
V_to_next_xy (norm) is (5.00004113497265e-08, -0.999999999999999, 0). (Correct)
Unnormalized perpendicular P_un = Vec3(V_to_next_xy.y(), -V_to_next_xy.x(), 0.0) should be (-0.999999999999999, -5.00004113497265e-08, 0).
temp_bisector becomes P_un.
temp_bisector.normalize() is called.
The result of this normalization is logged as temp_bisector (result of collinear path): (-1.78813934326169e-07, -0.999999999999984, 0).
This step (5) is where the numerical error occurs. The vector (-0.999…, -5e-8, 0) when normalized should not become (-1.78e-7, -0.999…, 0).
The latter is almost parallel to (0, -1, 0), while the former is almost parallel to (-1, 0, 0).
It’s as if temp_bisector.normalize() for the input (-0.999…, -5e-8, 0) is producing something wildly incorrect, or the vector being normalized was actually (-1.78e-7 * L, -0.999… * L, 0) for some L.
What if temp_bisector = Vec3(V_to_next_xy.y(), -V_to_next_xy.x(), 0.0); itself has precision issues?
If V_to_next_xy.y() is -0.999999999999999 (16 nines), this is -(1.0 - 1e-15).
If V_to_next_xy.x() is 5.00004113497265e-08.
Vec3 tmp = Vec3(-(1.0-1e-15), -5.00004113497265e-08, 0.0).
This should be fine.
The most plausible candidate is Vec3::normalize() failing on this specific input vector (-0.999999999999999, -5.00004113497265e-08, 0).
Perhaps length() computes sqrt(xx + yy + zz).
xx = (-(1.0-1e-15))^2 = (1.0-1e-15)^2 = 1.0 - 2e-15 + 1e-30.
yy = (-5e-8)^2 = 2.5e-15.
xx + y*y = 1.0 - 2e-15 + 1e-30 + 2.5e-15 = 1.0 + 0.5e-15 + 1e-30.
length = sqrt(1.0 + 0.5e-15 + 1e-30). This is extremely close to 1.0.
If this length calculation has any error causing it to be, for example, abs(y) by mistake, then x/length would become x/abs(y) and y/length would become y/abs(y) = sign(y).
x/abs(y) = -1.0 / 5e-8 = -2e7. This is not what’s happening.
The logged value for temp_bisector (-1.78813934326169e-07, -0.999999999999984, 0)
is suspicious because its X component -1.78813934326169e-07 is very close to the X component of V_to_prev_xy (norm) from loop i=21, which is -5.00004113497265e-08, divided by a factor. Or perhaps V_to_next_xy.x() itself was somehow used more directly than -V_to_next_xy.x() in the Y component of the vector passed to normalize.
The logged temp_bisector (result of collinear path) for i=21 is (-1.78813934326169e-07, -0.999999999999984, 0).
Consider Loop i=20: temp_bisector (result of collinear path): (1, 0, 0). Its input for perpendicular construction was V_to_next_xy (norm) = (X_v: 4.9999318885022e-08, Y_v: -0.999999999999999, Z_v: 0).
Perpendicular from this is (Y_v, -X_v, 0) = (-0.999…, -4.999…e-8, 0). Normalizing this gives (-1, -4.999…e-8, 0).
The log for i=20 says it becomes (1,0,0). This is also wrong. It should be (-1, -very_small_y, 0).
The fallback temp_bisector = Vec3(1,0,0) only happens if temp_bisector.normalize() (the one on the perpendicular) also fails.
It seems the normalize() call for the vector constructed as Vec3(V_to_next_xy.y(), -V_to_next_xy.x(), 0.0) is problematic when one component is very small.

It correctly identified that sqrt(_v[0]*_v[0] + _v[1]*_v[1] + _v[2]*_v[2]); had too low precision and using std::hypot(_v[0], _v[1], _v[2]) would likely solve it.

If this is just autocomplete, then I agree that it’s a pretty fancy one.

It’s pretty simple to rate limit requests yourself.

Your answer doesn’t give confidence that you care about how the code looks. Could imply that you’re sloppy. Some people are very opiniated about style and think it matters a lot. They would be unhappy with people who say it doesn’t really matter.

They’d likely welcome fixes or comments on style. Other people would be very angry if you held up their PR with such trivialities.

I had strong style preferences when I was younger, but after working on so many projects with different styles I really don’t care anymore about any particular style. I just make sure to seamlessly match the style of the code around it.

Use ccache.

Not enough information.

New team member? Show them the style guide and where it doesn’t match.

Is the style guidelines consistently followed elsewhere? If not, I’d just approve it.

Do I have a good relationship with the other developer, and can they handle criticism? If not, I probably would not want to be the one reviewing it, but if I did I would likely let it go and fix it later. Fight more important battles.

Otherwise, how important is that piece of code? I’d immediately approve a one-off script, but if it’s an core piece of code, I assume the dev missed it and point it out. Happens to everyone.

etc. etc.

Never say never. 1/0 = 0

“Latin music superstar Nicky Jam. You know Nicky? She’s HOT!”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qK4PfqIHAk

During the pandemic any degree of effectiveness would save lives, so emergency approval was justified.

What? Pretty sure the requirement of effectiveness was at least 70%, and the approved vaccines had a >90% effectiveness. Obviously as the virus mutated the effectiveness nosedived, but they were very effective against the original strain. (edit: Effectiveness versus getting infected at all, not against serious illness and death, which remains good)

Putting Ctrl in the home row by replacing the useless Caps-Lock is sufficient for me .

Alt is easily reached with the thumbs and shift is already close enough to the home row, with shift-ctrl using both pinkies.

You could make the same argument for voting. What does your little drop in the vote bucket matter? Do you believe voting is a waste of time too?

Some developers seem to enjoy making their code obscenely difficult to understand, either because it actually makes sense to them that way, or because it makes them feel smarter.

Be wary about this mindset. This type of explanation sets you up for conflicts with existing developers. Several times I’ve seen developers coming into a team and complain about the code, creating conflicts that can last the entire working relationship for no good reason.

Much of the time the people who constantly work with code are already aware of the problems and may not be happy with it, but there’s no time or big benefit in improving working code. Or it’s complicated for good reasons which may not be immediately apparent. (ie. inherent complexity).

Here are a couple of benign reasons which probably will serve you much better.

1. It’s much more difficult and time consuming to make code that is easy to understand. Even in open source, there’s a limited amount of time to spend on any particular thing. This explanation is like a variation of Twain’s “I didn’t have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.”, or more abrasively Hanlon’s razor “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity time pressure”.

2. When writing the code, the developer has the entire context of his thought process available. You don’t have that, and that’s also the reason why your own code can make no sense a while later. Also it’s just much harder to read code than to write it.