deleted by creator

you can say that again!

CW: Suicide

What really sticks out to me about the gun debate in the US is the fact that experts know very well and have even pleaded with news corporations to stop focusing on mass shooters which only serves to glorify them and to give them the attention that they desire but they don't change how they cover mass shootings because it sells.

Contrast this to how the news covers suicide - if a significant death is caused by suicide, the act of suicide isn't treated with a sense of intrigue or fascination and instead there are referrals to helplines etc. It would be considered grossly negligent for a news company to discuss suicide methods, especially in any detail, in part because it would encourage others to do the same. The amount of outrage and backlash they'd face would be immense.

It just seems really incongruous to me how diametrically opposed news coverage is in regards to these different styles of death and the risk of what amounts to creating stochastic copycat events.

I gotta be honest with you, I've always just assumed that you are SorosSuperSoldier from Reddit based on the similarity between your username and theirs, and SSS has been a part of the leftist online discourse for at least 5 years off the top of my head but it's probably even longer than that tbh because it seems that time slips by very quickly.

The Fed has to raise interest rates on fartbucks to reduce inflation on cumcoins this is why we can't do anything about homeless children starving to death trust me bro there's no other way

I don't think I was born this way, just deprived and stunted of socialization. But does something like Stirner's union of egoists appeal to you too?

For me the saddest part is that I have a pocket universe of experiences inside me, and I recognize others do as well, but at best we remain at recognition and respect as fellow universes, maybe some overlaps, never achieve true and full understanding and sharing of those experiences.

deleted by creator

Recursion is simpler than you're making it. Definition: a function is recursive if it calls itself.

As an example, let's write a function in python to calculate z!=z(z-1)(z-2)*...*1

def factorial(z): if (n<=1): return 1 else: outputValue = z*factorial(z-1) return outputValue

so if we call factorial(3), we get to line 5 and calculate outputValue = 3(factorial(2)), so if we call factorial(2), we get to line 5 and calculate outputValue_2 = 2(factorial(1)). factorial(1) returns 1, so in our second call to factorial(2), outputValue_2 = 2(1) = 2 that returns to our first call to factorial(3) and we get outputValue = 3(2) = 6 so we return 6, which we now know is 3!

Hope this helps and let me know if you have any questions.

Here's a good link that explains it

This is what worked for me, YMMV.

Forget thinking of recursion explicitly, let recursion arise naturally out of the way you construct the definition of what a correct answer to your question is.

If our question is, given a root to a tree, what are the values of its leaves? The answer can be stated as, "The values of the leaves of a tree are either the value of the root itself if it has no subtrees, otherwise the leaves of each of its subtrees."

And a python implementation would look like

class treeNode:
   ... # tree nodes have a value and a list of children, which are all treeNodes too.

def leaves(root):
   if root.children == []:
      return root.value
   else:
      leaves_li = []
      for subtree in root.children:
         leaves_li += leaves(subtree)
      return leaves_li

A more procedural way of finding recursive solutions is to think of what the simplest possible case is (often, it's what happens when the input is empty, or is 1, or 0). That case is called the base case. The we only need to think of a way that we can simplify any other input to get closer to the base case, and find the relation between the simpler version of the problem and the hard version. In the above example, the base case is when they give you a root with no subtree. A more difficult case is when they give you a root that has more subtrees. But the relation is that all subtrees have leaves if you keep traversing their own subtrees, and leaves have no subtrees (they are our base case!). Therefore, all that's necessary is for the function to work its way into the base case and consolidate the returns from the base case into something that makes more sense. In this case we consolidate the leaves by just putting them all into the same list, which we return.

If you're studying something CS related in college, you'll likely take an algorithms class that covers Dynamic Programming. If you don't really get recursion, I'd encourage you to look up "Dynamic Programming Tabulation". It's a technique for solving problems that have intuitive recursive solutions through iteration instead of recursion. For the tree leaves problem it actually isn't very useful, it is much harder to make an iterative solution (although still possible) than the simple recursive solution I provided. It's good to learn because it will teach you the fundamental intuition behind mathematical induction, which is the foundation for recursion in CS.

:Hofstader-shining:

deleted by creator