"Steve Holden" <sholden@holdenweb.com> writes:
> > A bunch of 0.5% improvements add up. If there's not much cost in
> > complexity, why not go for it?
> >
>
> Yeah, right, we just need 200 of them and we're laughing. Computation in
> infinitesimal time.
Multiply up doesn't have the same ring to it, does it?
Cheers,
M.
--
I don't have any special knowledge of all this. In fact, I made all
the above up, in the hope that it corresponds to reality.
-- Mark Carroll, ucam.chat
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4